Opportunities Amid a Shifting Geopolitical Landscape
Markets have remained strong in a fragile global landscape. Amid a tight monetary policy regime, strong momentum in tech innovation, and more frequent geopolitical ruptures, investors are faced with the challenges of building resilient portfolios. At this critical juncture in the global economy and markets ahead of the U.S. elections, investors need to think internationally, plan strategically for their long-term goals, and structure their investment portfolios to take advantage of a myriad of risks and opportunities while navigating a rapidly shifting geopolitical and macro environment.
Watch the replay
Transcript | Elections & Geopolitics Panel (Sept 10)
Speakers: Paul Haenle, Charles Myers & Geoffrey Siebengartner
Tue, 10 September 2024
Good evening, everyone. It's great to be with you last I was up with this group. It was in January for the annual outlook. Hopefully, there's some familiar faces out there. I look forward to reconnecting. We are in great company tonight. We've got 2 very special guests, as Harshika mentioned from New York/ London. We have Charles Myers, who's the chairman and founder of Signum
global advisors. Charles is very close to the Democrat campaign, has worked for a couple previous Presidents and candidates.
He was just at the Democratic National Convention
in Chicago, and so it will bring us will regale us with stories
from that experience, and we'll really he's got some wonderful anecdotes to share. It'll help us think about how to
how to anticipate what we'll see in the in the debate tomorrow and over the next few weeks until November 5th and then from Washington, DC. We have from J.P. Morgan our very own Paul Hanley, always good to have him back in the region. Paul heads up what we call our Asia pacific
policy and strategic competitiveness team, part of a global government relations. But when Jamie has questions about what's happening in the region, he calls Paul, and now we can call Paul so, and I call you
but before we get started, I thought, and there will be a poll later, and there's a QR. Code on your table that will help you sort of get that set up. But I thought it would be useful, as we did in January, just to have a quick show of hands, if you don't mind. You know, going into on here on debate. if you have a view on who will win the election in in November? If I could have a show of hands for Donald Trump
this is who you think not prefer, by the way. So no, there's no judgment here.
Okay.
all right, not a huge amount. And then what about for Kamala Harris.
It's a tie I don't know. It's a tie. Okay, it's a tie, so we'll call it even. I mean, there's some undecided. There's some so that's fair. Well, good! Well, let's get started. That's a useful reference, though, for us in the discussion that we're about to have.
So, Charles, you were just at the Dnc. There's obviously a huge amount of energy coming from the Harris campaign. She's got a tremendous amount of momentum has really, I think, caught fire and raised amazing amounts of money
to carry her through to November. Can you just talk a little bit about what we've witnessed, I mean, really, in the last 2 months it's been a unprecedented in in many ways, so maybe you can bring us up to speed just to start us off. Yeah, absolutely. And thank you, Jp. Morgan, for having me. It's great to be back in Hong Kong. You know. And also, by the way I need to speak to Diane, so I need Diane's number. Your mother-in-law have a little conversation about her vote. But
you know
here's where we are. We are in, as you mentioned. You know, Jeff, really an unprecedented election in so many ways. First, we've had 3 October surprises right? We call them October surprises, meaning 3 political Black Swan events
in in one election, first, Biden's disastrous debate performance so bad it changed the course of the race. Right trump pulled way ahead in the in, the, in the in polling right after that, secondly, an assassination attempt on President Trump. 3rd
Biden dropping out. We've never had in the history of the country a sitting president who has won the primary
and then dropped out right. It is a really big deal. By the way, he did not drop out. He was pushed out by Nancy Pelosi. Let's be very clear, Nancy Pelosi proving once again she's the most powerful person in the country, but 3 Major Black Swan events, and the possibility of others. By the way, from here, the second thing that is unprecedented is this is now essentially a snap election in the UK or European sense of the word, which is that it is a 3 month election.
Kamala Harris has had this, and continues to have this incredible luxury and advantage of only having to run for 3 months. Our presidential cycle now is almost 2 years long. She has not had to be under the microscope for 2 years a huge advantage, and lastly, she's had another massive advantage. I would argue one of the biggest advantage you could ever have in politics.
which is rock bottom expectations. Everybody underestimated her. Everybody, including Donald Trump, and part of that again, is because most people, including in the United States, but around the world, had bought into the narrative
and the coverage of her which, on the more optimistic end of the spectrum was invisible or useless. All the way through to, you know this giggling sort of silly woman, which is
again, all of which is a massive mischaracterization of her. Kamala Harris is an incredibly talented.
incredibly talented politician, and I say that just somewhat objectively, because you don't get from Assistant District Attorney in San Francisco to Attorney General of California, to Senator for 10Â min Vice President, and now quite possibly President of the United States, without being incredibly talented. And so everyone underestimated her. That's a massive advantage which she's used in politics. So where we are today is, she's managed to do 2 things that are truly remarkable.
In a very short period of time, literally, in less than 6 weeks, Biden dropped out on July 21.st In less than 6 weeks she has united the Democratic party behind her. That has. That never happens. The Democratic party is so deeply divided.
you know. I always say, in any other country we would be literally 2 or 3 separate parties. We're an umbrella party, a coalition party. We can't even agree internally on messaging, let alone external messaging. She has united the party behind her. The second thing she did.
aside from raising as part of that uniting the party a record amount of money. By the way, just to just as a quick aside at our firm, we watch political fundraising very closely, because it's a very clear data set or indicator. All candidates have to report on a regular basis how much money they've raised.
And from whom, by the way, and so in 6 weeks. She's raised 610 million dollars. Just to put that in perspective. Hillary Clinton, in the entire presidential cycle in 16 raised 1 billion.
Kamala Harris has raised 610 million in 6 weeks, absolutely staggering. By the way it is, and she's out raising trump 3 to one right now.
So she's united the party record amount of fundraising. The second thing she's done, which is truly remarkable is she has closed the polling gap with trump when Biden dropped out on July 21st Trump was ahead by 5 points in in an average of the swing States, 5 points, by the way. A number to keep in mind as we go forward between now and November 5th
is, if a candidate is 3 points ahead on election eve.
they most likely will win the race because of the math in the electoral college. It's not perfect math, but it's pretty good math, pretty straightforward, so to be 5 points ahead.
This was a done deal for trump right? She in 6 weeks has closed that gap. She's now slightly ahead in the in the swing States and an average of the swing States. Both of those are remarkable achievements. The reason the last thing I would just say on this part of the reason she's been able to do all of this, aside from being very talented, is that every Democrat in the country.
I would argue, while Biden was still in the race, had was in some state of you know, panic about the election resignation. They were going to lose depression.
and the minute he dropped out or left the race. There was this incredible sense of relief, but also energy, enthusiasm, money organizing, etc.
So where we go from here is, we have the debate tomorrow morning at 9 Am. Hong Kong time, I would argue the bar. The bar is pretty high for Kamala Harris. In this the bar is not so high for trump, and I say that because nobody in the world is tuning into this debate to watch, trump or expecting trump to be absolutely brilliant on policy.
Right? We're tuning in to watch, trump, annihilate the competition. Right? I mean, that's what we watch. That's what they know, what he's so good at in the debate format. But I would. But for vice, President Harris, because most voters don't really know what, where she is or who she is, and what she stands for right? Because this has been a snap election.
She really will have to articulate some really important policy positions and also defend the Biden Harris Track record for the last 4 years. Right? So the bar, I would argue, is very high for her in the debate tomorrow, and we'll watch that.
The other quick date, if I can put on your calendar is October first.st That's the vice Presidential TV debate. I I don't think that's going to move the needle, but I think it's going to be highly entertaining, so I strongly recommend, if you can to tune into that, and then, of course, November 5th is our election.
And if I can, our base case is, I believe that Kamala Harris will win. We've had a base case since August second of a Harris win with divided government in the opposite way of today, and if I can. My last quick point, I would just say, the reason I think Harris wins is there's a record low 10% undecided in in the United States, including your mother-in-law, who's already decided. There's a record low, undecided number, a number of undecided. So the strategy on both sides
Trump and Harris is less about converting the undecided than it is about turning out more of your own base. And this is where Harris has the advantage. I believe she is a much bigger driver
of turnout of 3 of the key democratic constituencies in the United States, of women, more women vote than men in the United States of women, black voters and young voters. The biggest swing in polling that we've seen. Aside from Harris closing the gap with trump is a swing from Biden to Harris in black voters, young voters and women. So this is going to be all about turnout in the 6 swing States. And I think Harris still has the advantage.
Yeah. What? We hear a little bit now, and she's done so well. And yet there's still these questions, and despite all of her success. She's only managed to bring the polls back to even kind of.
And so we're starting to hear that maybe we've reached Peak Harris. Is that
is that accurate? And if so, how does how does she kind of break through that? Yeah. So I think. You know, to be fair going from down 5 to even or slightly ahead. She's actually ahead, nationally by 2 points, based on an average of polling. To go from down 5 to, you know, slightly ahead.
Which means it's really a tie is a huge accomplishment. It would be hard for any candidate in any democracy to maintain the level of momentum that she's had right. So I think that part of the next big story
out there is going to be. Have we seen Pete Harris, and was it last week? We've always believed that this race is going to come down to somewhere between 10,000 30,000 votes
in about 4 swing states, possibly 3. It's gonna really come down to Pennsylvania, by the way. So in the end, what she's done is she's put the Democrats back into the game with the real chance of winning the White House a very big deal. One last thing which I didn't mention that's also been a huge advantage for her is that, with the exception of fox News or the Rupert Murdoch, set of outlets.
she's had universally positive press coverage
the media loves her global media. By the way, she's had this huge, you know, tailwind of positive media coverage. Now she's refused to give any press conferences, as you all know, and the media is getting pretty frustrated about that.
So in in our country, as in most democracies, the media builds a candidate up and then tears them down. I do worry that the media tear down of Kamala is coming quite soon, so we'll watch that. But this is going to come down to a handful of votes in a very small group of swing States
unless
we got another October surprise, which is a Taylor swift endorsement. Yeah. And then it's over right. Yes. Well, I can tell you. I don't have an inside track on this. No one really does. But I'm I would be willing to bet a lot of money that Taylor is going to endorse
and I say that because Taylor endorsed Joe Biden in 2,020. So I think it's. It's a reasonable expectation that she will endorse Kamala Harris quite publicly, and we'll see. You know I was saying it because you mentioned the Dnc. In Chicago which I was at. It's my 5th convention.
you know. I haven't seen anything like that. The nearest in terms of level, of not only attendance, but energy and excitement was Obama in 8, and this was much. The energy, level, and excitement was much higher at this 1 2 weeks ago. In fact, I've been saying it was like a 4 day, Taylor Swift concert, and I say that, having never been to a Taylor swift concert. But it was. It just was. The energy is what you saw on television.
You know, the Democrats feel very optimistic now that they're back in the game and they can win this
I just want to touch briefly, and then we'll go into kind of
policy implications, you know, depending on which way this goes. And particularly, we'll focus on Apac in the Asia Pacific region, and how we should be prepared, but just shifting to to trump for a moment back in January, when we were here.
you know, we couldn't help but note his. The criminal charges and convictions. Are those headwinds at all, or are we just we just moved past that, you know, I would say, on all of Trump's legal issues. And he is now a convicted felon also accused of, you know, and convicted of sexual assault by the way. But of all of his legal issues.
In a way, it doesn't really impact voters. It's not going to change anybody's minds. Right? So in the United States, it's really confirmatory meaning. If you're a Republican in the States, you absolutely believe that all of his legal issues are a political witch hunt and an abuse of justice.
Even though he was convicted by a jury. But anyway, and if you're a Democrat, you're just, it's confirmatory. You're convinced he's a criminal, right? So I don't think it's going to move the needle either way. The bigger issue with trump is something that has been really interesting to watch is for the last 6 weeks.
He's really been a bit on the back foot, if you, you know. If you've watched his coverage, you've seen him in, you know if you watch his body language and watched him at rallies. And the reason is that and even he has said this, you know that the Republicans spent so much money and their entire convention in July running against Joe Biden. Right, Joe was the nominee, and so suddenly
Joe's out, and it's Kamala Harris, and I think Trump and his campaign have really been struggling on how best to define her, but also attack her, and because of that, the challenge there that they're that they're having. He's defaulted to what he normally does, which is attack her on race and gender, which is not playing very well in the Us. And so what I was going to say on that is, I do believe.
that he will regain his footing. I think his campaign, and it's already starting, will be back again, and where they will, where he and his team will regain their footing is especially on policy. Her 2 biggest vulnerabilities are the border and cost of living. When he comes out on those issues again, it really resonates with voters. So I do think again, he's been a bit on the back foot. And one last thing, if I can, on his choice of
President, you know, I always like to mention this just because it's so fascinating. This election is so interesting and again unusual in so many ways. But 2 weeks after the Republican Convention.
this has never happened in American politics ever since polling began in the country.
Jd. Vance had a negative 5 favorability rating. You can actually have a negative favorability rating never happened before in American politics. To put it in perspective, Sarah Palin, after her convention with Mccain 2 weeks out positive, 26. Favorability Dan Quayle 2 weeks out. George Bush, Seniors, Vp, pick
a positive 15
JD. Vance. Negative 5. Never happened. But it's almost you would think it's impossible.
Now that was 2 weeks out today. It's worse negative. 10
Jd. Vance has landed like a lead balloon on that campaign, and it has led to a lot of. We were just talking about it right before coming on stage here. It has led to a lot of speculation that trump may drop him from the ticket. I don't think that's gonna happen 55 days out, right? The optics would be terrible. Having said that, you know, we've talked about October surprises. You know. The biggest surprise. One of the biggest, I would argue is if he drops Vance and picks Nikki Haley
huge, you know. Then then that would be a massive advantage. So you never would. Trump want to rule anything out. But I can tell you, Jd, Vance, there's a lot of buyers remorse because he was chosen at a time when trump was so far ahead. Trump picked him when he was so he was really a safety pick. Right? He, trump went with someone that literally is him, but much younger, to carry the mantle of Trumpism into the future.
He didn't pick someone which he would today, I believe that would have broadened his appeal. Like Nikki Haley, Elise Stefanik, Marco Rubio. So so you're kind of stuck with him, as I always say he has to carry him to term but anyway well, he trump does like superlative. So worst Vp pick ever fits. Turning to turning to you know. Why does this matter?
for us here in the region we think about
markets in particular. Paul, you know what we hear through these campaigns is a lot of a lot about what these candidates intend to do. And there's been particularly a lot of talk about what they're going to do day one, you know, problems will be solved.
tariffs will be levied
and you've been thinking a lot about a trump administration in particular, and what it means for us here in the region. Can I ask you to share kind of some of the things you've been thinking about? Yeah.
first, thank you for having me. It's great to be back.
Always like coming out to the region. I spent last week in Mainland China.
talking to a lot of Chinese friends and interlocutors about the Presidential election, about their view of the candidates, and had some interesting takeaways which I'd be glad to share. But let me let me just start with one takeaway which I heard last week, and maybe some of you share this assessment was
asking them about. You know, trump versus Harris, they said. Look, when it comes to China and Us. Policy toward China.
We don't think there'll be much of a difference between Trump and Harris.
Both pursue strategic competition.
That's intensifying. The one thing they hear about Washington, DC. Is the one area where Republicans and Democrats have bipartisan consensus and can agree
is on China policy and the need to get tougher. And so you know who. So away, it doesn't really matter at the end of the day, whether it's Trump or Harris.
So for me, I think you know, I watched this very, very closely, and was China director under President George W. Bush and under President Obama. I see this quite differently. I think there are some really important and meaningful
differences between the 2, and I think it's important to point those out. I think it's a misreading to think otherwise. So you know, when I was working for President George W. Bush got to the end of the administration. The Obama won the Obama Asia team came to me and said, Would you stay on and serve as China director into the 1st year of the Obama administration
can only do that if there's consensus, both on the analysis of China, but also on the approach that they want to use, and what they said was, we want to build on the framework that President Bush put in place around engaging with China and trying to cooperate and move forward in a constructive Us. China relationship
today between the Republicans and Democrats, there is some broad consensus on the analysis of the challenges that China represents. But where there is not agreement is what to do about those challenges, and there I think they have very different views about how to go about strategic competition with China. And if you look at in 3 categories, process substance and approach.
look at, let's look at process for a second in terms of policy formulation we saw in the 1st term under President trump
policy formulation process was often
President trump, sending something out via Tweet
that would contradict with something that his own Secretary of State said on the same topic.
very chaotic right? You look at the Biden Administration, and I think Harris will continue this, on which is especially on the issue of China, is to try to have a very disciplined cohesive interagency approach, getting all of the different cabinet secretaries all on the same sheet of music pursuing a unified policy
substance. If you look at the question of substance, what do we hear out of the trump team from trump himself and his advisors
60% tariffs on China.
This is their signature initiative. When it comes to us, China relations is 60% tariffs.
And of course we saw in the 1st Trump administration the trade war, and the tariffs, and the escalation there.
You don't hear that
from Harris?
Yes, Biden implemented some tariffs in the renewable energy space. I don't expect tariffs would drop tariffs. She'll keep the tariffs that are there. But
the I don't hear plans for major new tariffs on China there may be, but certainly not 60% across the board, and then in terms of approach. And I think this is really where the biggest difference is
the Biden administration, I think, Harris would continue, this
is recognizes that there's strategic competition in us China. There's no doubt about that.
But they're trying to manage that competition.
And so what you see is an approach to compete and compete intensively.
But at the same time there's dialogue. There's diplomacy. They're trying to strike areas of cooperation between the 2 countries. They're looking to find a strategic equilibrium between the United States and China. That may not come next year or the year after. But ultimately they have not basically concluded that the Us. China relationship
is not going to work forever. If you look at the trump team. I think it's much more. In my view. It's not about managing the competition. It's about winning the competition.
I think it's much more 0 sum, thinking
where the Biden Harris team right now talks about
de-risking right to reduce the risk in some narrowly scoped selected areas.
But to keep
space and keep the opportunity for collaboration interact. And even in technology cooperation, where they talk about small yards and tall fences. Now, that may be hard to carry out. But they're trying.
When we talk to trump advisors.
We hear they don't like de-risking.
They like decoupling.
And on technology competition.
They don't like the small yards, tall fences. They like big yards. They want to expand the area of technology that they restrict to China based on national security. So my own view is, there are very meaningful and important differences between Trump and what we would expect in a Harris administration
and Charles is a Harris administration at the policy level, a continuation of
of Biden. How do you view it? I think you know, if you look at what she's running on, she hasn't released a lot of policy which is intentional. Because she's running on the Biden Harris record, and a big part of her message is continuity, right and domestically, you know, I always say whether you like Biden or not. The truth is, with the help of the fed, of course. The Biden Administration's help engineer an incredibly soft landing. So far our economy has been very strong.
Secondly, the stock market
hitting record highs again, as of last month. Right. Biden gets no credit for that, and Harris won either. But again, things have been pretty good in the Us. On foreign policy. If Harris wins, it's again continuity continuing to engage with our allies, particularly NATO in Europe, around the defense of Ukraine, engaging with our allies here in the Indo-pacific and deterring around Taiwan. But also you know, taking perhaps the tech export restriction list
and the tech export restriction effort a bit further. If Harris wins, it's something that Biden, as you all know, taken very far and encouraged, and actually been able to convince some of our allies like the Dutch, and soon the South Koreans to join that effort in in certain technologies. So so that's a slight difference. But overall, it's continuity and I think she's right to run on that.
Thank you. And that does get us into maybe a little bit of deeper, closer. Look at China.
you know, we're in a period of managed competition.
I think the Biden Administration has pursued a strategy that has sort of stabilized the bilateral relationship. I mean, W. What's the how do you see the trajectory?
Paul, because there's certainly plenty of friction points.
Which way does it go from here? Yeah. So I think you know again, I think the strategic competition will intensify. There's no doubt about that.
But you know, as an example of, I think where a difference would be between Harris and Trump, you know. Last week Jake Sullivan, the National Security Advisor, went to Beijing.
He had 14Â h of meetings with Wang Yi, his Chinese counterpart also met with President Xi. Jinping, and he met with the vice chair of the Central Military Commission. And he pushed on issues where you know, the Us.
Says we're not pleased about, you know China's support to Russia
and prosecuting the war in in Ukraine. You know we're concerned about Taiwan and what's going on in the South China Sea. But they also talked about the importance of enhancing the military to military communication channels and other communication channels between the United States and China.
In the Trump Administration
they pulled down. When I was in the Bush administration there was over a hundred official communication channels between the United States and China that carried on into the Obama Administration. President Trump came into office. He pulled all of those down.
There was one channel of communication, and that was Bob Lighthizer, the Us. Trade Rep
and his counterpart, Leo and so you see the Biden Administration trying to build up between our Treasury Department and the Ministry of Finance in China, between the Commerce Department and the Ministry of Commerce in China, between our military establishments, and, of course, at the highest level. And one of the outcomes of Jake Sullivan's meetings last week was that President Biden and President Xi will probably do a video teleconference before the end of the month.
and then they're probably going to meet on the margins of the G 20 or apec. So you know I they have a view in the Biden Administration. I think the Harris Administration would carry this forward, that if you're going to have intense competition.
you necessarily have to have robust communication, because you need to explain what you're doing and why you're doing it.
because otherwise the other side is going to come to the worst conclusion.
and that will lead to a lot of instability.
greater confrontation, and the worst off conflict. So again, I think you know by asking your question, Jeff, where are we today? In the Us. China relationship? It's just another opportunity to kind of explain where I would see the differences. I completely agree with Paul. I think the biggest difference between Trump and Harris on us. China is that. And I would say with, If trump wins
more broadly, more globally. The biggest difference is that trump 2.0 will be much more protectionist than trump one right? He's running on 10% tariffs on everything, 60% Chinese. They're not going to do that across the board. But they will be much more targeted and will use especially targeted towards the EU in a punitive way, but also towards China and use tariffs even much more broadly right? And it's 1 of their top objectives
out the gate in the 1st 90 days. So again, I think that of all the sort of misunderstandings in a way, or perhaps underestimation of what trump might do is this issue of being far more protectionist. Lighthizer is the guy to watch. Lighthizer is
a frontrunner for Treasury, Secretary or commerce? I think he gets commerce. I think trump's gonna give treasury to someone from financial services like Scott Besant or Howard Lutnick. The other guy to watch is Pete Navarro, who's a frontrunner to be chief of staff in the White House to trump
so I've been recommending lighthizers book to everybody. If you know, if you're interested in reading it. But it's called, no trade is free, and it is truly a blueprint of what they didn't get done on trade in Trump one that they want to do in trump to mostly China focused. It's actually a very important book. Unfortunately, Navarro, just out of prison, so he's available for the yes, yes, Navarro, just went straight from prison to the Republican Convention and spoke on the floor. Actually, so
so just timing is everything real quick just to spring bar off of something, Charles said. You know, in terms of the trump administration I agree. Much more protectionist tariffs right, you know, right out the gate. But there is a question, and I think it would behoove all of you to kind of look at this in the early days. If trump wins, there's a big question of what is the purpose of the tariffs right?
Is it
to be used as an effort to get leverage
for some sort of a bargain, some sort of a deal that that Donald trump wants to get with the Chinese? Or is it simply to use the tariffs
as an effort to strategically decouple from China.
And there's a major difference. Now, if you ask Trump advisors like Bob Lighthizer and his team. They will say, those tariffs are going to be used. We are. We've become over reliant on China. China is a strategic competitor. They're a growing rival.
We need for our own security
to decouple from China, and we're going to use those tariffs to do that.
Donald Trump is probably more inclined
to strike a deal.
But what would that deal entail?
What would he be? What would he be trying to achieve?
And these are some of the big question marks. I think that we'll sort of get a sense of in the early days.
Lighthizer knows that trump may want to do a deal. I don't think Bob Lighthizer would want to do a deal. I think he would want to strategically decouple.
and I think he's going to try what he can do to make sure that
Donald Trump doesn't enter into some negotiation that he doesn't see us in us interest. So we'll see how that plays out.
Charles, do you think any foreign policy issues get mentioned in the debate?
I do. I do. I think Trump is running very clearly to end the war in Ukraine within 24Â h, which won't happen, but he will, I think, work
pretty hard to try to bring that war to a more rapid conclusion. That's another key. Foreign policy difference between Trump and Harris. Harris will, you know, want to support Ukraine, and the war takes much longer to end. I do think you know Taiwan will come up very likely in the debate. So yes, I think. Also, you know given that she was never border Czar, by the way, but it doesn't matter, because everybody
think she was. Borders are. Given how important the issue of border security and immigration is for Republican voters. I think you know, immigration will come up, but also the Usmca. And our relationship with Mexico more generally.
And
I guess there are a couple of well, I guess I guess another big difference is just industrial policy. And there are all kinds of sectors. I mean, what do you are there any in particular that stand out? And, Paul, you were just in China, I mean, what should we be looking for? You know, I mean Evs, of course, are top of mind. And I mean, what? What do you think gets hit? Kind of the hardest. Yeah. I mean, there's a big question about what trump, you know might do with regard to the Inflation reduction act which dealt, you know, quite a bit with renewable energies.
And those subsidies around that
you know strategically, the Biden team
put a lot of those subsidies in red States. And so you have state leaders that would be pushing back on the Trump Administration if they wanted to pull back. I do think they will use
some industrial policy potentially more around the defense sector to build up munitions that we have seen are
insufficiently supplied. We've seen that in the context of the Ukraine conflict.
Great super. Well, we're just about a time.
Charles.
any words of wisdom here, as we enter the final stretch of the campaign. And what, what, what we should.
what do you? I guess. What are you watching more closely to see who, as you think about electoral math, and who gets across the line. Yes. So I take 2 things to watch. Really, the the thing that if you really want to predict the outcome of this election. The thing that we should all do or or can do to to that we should watch most closely. Is that it's going to come down to 6 swing States, the blue Wall of Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and the Sun Belt of Georgia, Arizona, Nevada.
Harris, if she, Wins, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, She Wins, the White House. If she loses Pennsylvania she'll win Wisconsin, Michigan. They're very increasingly Democratic States. If she loses Pennsylvania. She's got to win 2 of Georgia Arizona Nevada harder to do right. So in fact, what I've been saying is, if you follow polling in Pennsylvania.
that's gonna tell us who's gonna win? Very important. Actually secondly, again, because this election is about turnout. It's about driving more of your own base to turn out what's been lost in all the coverage of this election because of these big surprises that we've had? Are the issues still matter to voters. And so the 3 issues by far in this election. Number one is the economy. It's always the number one issue in our election.
Unless we're kinetically at war, which we're not. We're in a proxy war with Russia. So the economy number one, and within that, very importantly and this has been proven for the last 40 years, the data sets. There's 2 data sets that resonate the most with voters, the employment or unemployment rate, or any changes. That's why, by much more than Cpi or Gdp, etc. That's why, as a quick aside, whenever there's a good labor print in the United States, the President, whoever it is, runs out and does a press conference.
You know, I brought unemployment down. It really resonates with voter. I think, voters. The labor market is softening, but it's not deteriorating rapidly, right? The second data set that really matters for voters is the price of gasoline which continues to come down. So I think on the economy again, a bit of a wash very quickly. After that, the number 2 issue for voters in this election. If you're a Republican
border security literally, if you're a Democrat, Women's reproductive freedom and or the defense of democracy, they're connected, but slightly different.
So in the end, our elections on November 5, then on November 6, then when we look back with the benefit of hindsight, we will find out which was the bigger driver of turnout border security women's reproductive freedom and the defense of democracy. I believe it'll be the latter. I think Harris wins this. If the election has been decided by that time correct, we may have a slight delay we may have. We may have a tie so I think the main message is, if there are any Pennsylvania voters out there, make sure you have a voting plan. Get your ballots in.
You can vote from abroad
so absolutely great. Well, thank you both. For helping us think these issues through. Thank you to. You all. Enjoy your dinner, and the next session, and
we will. We'll see you next time and enjoy the enjoy tomorrow morning's debate.
and we're back for questions. Yes, and we'll have a QA. Following the next panel. Thank you very much.
Transcript | Elections & Geopolitics Panel (Sept 10)
Speakers: Paul Haenle, Charles Myers & Geoffrey Siebengartner
Tue, 10 September 2024
Good evening, everyone. It's great to be with you last I was up with this group. It was in January for the annual outlook. Hopefully, there's some familiar faces out there. I look forward to reconnecting. We are in great company tonight. We've got 2 very special guests, as Harshika mentioned from New York/ London. We have Charles Myers, who's the chairman and founder of Signum
global advisors. Charles is very close to the Democrat campaign, has worked for a couple previous Presidents and candidates.
He was just at the Democratic National Convention
in Chicago, and so it will bring us will regale us with stories
from that experience, and we'll really he's got some wonderful anecdotes to share. It'll help us think about how to
how to anticipate what we'll see in the in the debate tomorrow and over the next few weeks until November 5th and then from Washington, DC. We have from J.P. Morgan our very own Paul Hanley, always good to have him back in the region. Paul heads up what we call our Asia pacific
policy and strategic competitiveness team, part of a global government relations. But when Jamie has questions about what's happening in the region, he calls Paul, and now we can call Paul so, and I call you
but before we get started, I thought, and there will be a poll later, and there's a QR. Code on your table that will help you sort of get that set up. But I thought it would be useful, as we did in January, just to have a quick show of hands, if you don't mind. You know, going into on here on debate. if you have a view on who will win the election in in November? If I could have a show of hands for Donald Trump
this is who you think not prefer, by the way. So no, there's no judgment here.
Okay.
all right, not a huge amount. And then what about for Kamala Harris.
It's a tie I don't know. It's a tie. Okay, it's a tie, so we'll call it even. I mean, there's some undecided. There's some so that's fair. Well, good! Well, let's get started. That's a useful reference, though, for us in the discussion that we're about to have.
So, Charles, you were just at the Dnc. There's obviously a huge amount of energy coming from the Harris campaign. She's got a tremendous amount of momentum has really, I think, caught fire and raised amazing amounts of money
to carry her through to November. Can you just talk a little bit about what we've witnessed, I mean, really, in the last 2 months it's been a unprecedented in in many ways, so maybe you can bring us up to speed just to start us off. Yeah, absolutely. And thank you, Jp. Morgan, for having me. It's great to be back in Hong Kong. You know. And also, by the way I need to speak to Diane, so I need Diane's number. Your mother-in-law have a little conversation about her vote. But
you know
here's where we are. We are in, as you mentioned. You know, Jeff, really an unprecedented election in so many ways. First, we've had 3 October surprises right? We call them October surprises, meaning 3 political Black Swan events
in in one election, first, Biden's disastrous debate performance so bad it changed the course of the race. Right trump pulled way ahead in the in, the, in the in polling right after that, secondly, an assassination attempt on President Trump. 3rd
Biden dropping out. We've never had in the history of the country a sitting president who has won the primary
and then dropped out right. It is a really big deal. By the way, he did not drop out. He was pushed out by Nancy Pelosi. Let's be very clear, Nancy Pelosi proving once again she's the most powerful person in the country, but 3 Major Black Swan events, and the possibility of others. By the way, from here, the second thing that is unprecedented is this is now essentially a snap election in the UK or European sense of the word, which is that it is a 3 month election.
Kamala Harris has had this, and continues to have this incredible luxury and advantage of only having to run for 3 months. Our presidential cycle now is almost 2 years long. She has not had to be under the microscope for 2 years a huge advantage, and lastly, she's had another massive advantage. I would argue one of the biggest advantage you could ever have in politics.
which is rock bottom expectations. Everybody underestimated her. Everybody, including Donald Trump, and part of that again, is because most people, including in the United States, but around the world, had bought into the narrative
and the coverage of her which, on the more optimistic end of the spectrum was invisible or useless. All the way through to, you know this giggling sort of silly woman, which is
again, all of which is a massive mischaracterization of her. Kamala Harris is an incredibly talented.
incredibly talented politician, and I say that just somewhat objectively, because you don't get from Assistant District Attorney in San Francisco to Attorney General of California, to Senator for 10Â min Vice President, and now quite possibly President of the United States, without being incredibly talented. And so everyone underestimated her. That's a massive advantage which she's used in politics. So where we are today is, she's managed to do 2 things that are truly remarkable.
In a very short period of time, literally, in less than 6 weeks, Biden dropped out on July 21.st In less than 6 weeks she has united the Democratic party behind her. That has. That never happens. The Democratic party is so deeply divided.
you know. I always say, in any other country we would be literally 2 or 3 separate parties. We're an umbrella party, a coalition party. We can't even agree internally on messaging, let alone external messaging. She has united the party behind her. The second thing she did.
aside from raising as part of that uniting the party a record amount of money. By the way, just to just as a quick aside at our firm, we watch political fundraising very closely, because it's a very clear data set or indicator. All candidates have to report on a regular basis how much money they've raised.
And from whom, by the way, and so in 6 weeks. She's raised 610 million dollars. Just to put that in perspective. Hillary Clinton, in the entire presidential cycle in 16 raised 1 billion.
Kamala Harris has raised 610 million in 6 weeks, absolutely staggering. By the way it is, and she's out raising trump 3 to one right now.
So she's united the party record amount of fundraising. The second thing she's done, which is truly remarkable is she has closed the polling gap with trump when Biden dropped out on July 21st Trump was ahead by 5 points in in an average of the swing States, 5 points, by the way. A number to keep in mind as we go forward between now and November 5th
is, if a candidate is 3 points ahead on election eve.
they most likely will win the race because of the math in the electoral college. It's not perfect math, but it's pretty good math, pretty straightforward, so to be 5 points ahead.
This was a done deal for trump right? She in 6 weeks has closed that gap. She's now slightly ahead in the in the swing States and an average of the swing States. Both of those are remarkable achievements. The reason the last thing I would just say on this part of the reason she's been able to do all of this, aside from being very talented, is that every Democrat in the country.
I would argue, while Biden was still in the race, had was in some state of you know, panic about the election resignation. They were going to lose depression.
and the minute he dropped out or left the race. There was this incredible sense of relief, but also energy, enthusiasm, money organizing, etc.
So where we go from here is, we have the debate tomorrow morning at 9 Am. Hong Kong time, I would argue the bar. The bar is pretty high for Kamala Harris. In this the bar is not so high for trump, and I say that because nobody in the world is tuning into this debate to watch, trump or expecting trump to be absolutely brilliant on policy.
Right? We're tuning in to watch, trump, annihilate the competition. Right? I mean, that's what we watch. That's what they know, what he's so good at in the debate format. But I would. But for vice, President Harris, because most voters don't really know what, where she is or who she is, and what she stands for right? Because this has been a snap election.
She really will have to articulate some really important policy positions and also defend the Biden Harris Track record for the last 4 years. Right? So the bar, I would argue, is very high for her in the debate tomorrow, and we'll watch that.
The other quick date, if I can put on your calendar is October first.st That's the vice Presidential TV debate. I I don't think that's going to move the needle, but I think it's going to be highly entertaining, so I strongly recommend, if you can to tune into that, and then, of course, November 5th is our election.
And if I can, our base case is, I believe that Kamala Harris will win. We've had a base case since August second of a Harris win with divided government in the opposite way of today, and if I can. My last quick point, I would just say, the reason I think Harris wins is there's a record low 10% undecided in in the United States, including your mother-in-law, who's already decided. There's a record low, undecided number, a number of undecided. So the strategy on both sides
Trump and Harris is less about converting the undecided than it is about turning out more of your own base. And this is where Harris has the advantage. I believe she is a much bigger driver
of turnout of 3 of the key democratic constituencies in the United States, of women, more women vote than men in the United States of women, black voters and young voters. The biggest swing in polling that we've seen. Aside from Harris closing the gap with trump is a swing from Biden to Harris in black voters, young voters and women. So this is going to be all about turnout in the 6 swing States. And I think Harris still has the advantage.
Yeah. What? We hear a little bit now, and she's done so well. And yet there's still these questions, and despite all of her success. She's only managed to bring the polls back to even kind of.
And so we're starting to hear that maybe we've reached Peak Harris. Is that
is that accurate? And if so, how does how does she kind of break through that? Yeah. So I think. You know, to be fair going from down 5 to even or slightly ahead. She's actually ahead, nationally by 2 points, based on an average of polling. To go from down 5 to, you know, slightly ahead.
Which means it's really a tie is a huge accomplishment. It would be hard for any candidate in any democracy to maintain the level of momentum that she's had right. So I think that part of the next big story
out there is going to be. Have we seen Pete Harris, and was it last week? We've always believed that this race is going to come down to somewhere between 10,000 30,000 votes
in about 4 swing states, possibly 3. It's gonna really come down to Pennsylvania, by the way. So in the end, what she's done is she's put the Democrats back into the game with the real chance of winning the White House a very big deal. One last thing which I didn't mention that's also been a huge advantage for her is that, with the exception of fox News or the Rupert Murdoch, set of outlets.
she's had universally positive press coverage
the media loves her global media. By the way, she's had this huge, you know, tailwind of positive media coverage. Now she's refused to give any press conferences, as you all know, and the media is getting pretty frustrated about that.
So in in our country, as in most democracies, the media builds a candidate up and then tears them down. I do worry that the media tear down of Kamala is coming quite soon, so we'll watch that. But this is going to come down to a handful of votes in a very small group of swing States
unless
we got another October surprise, which is a Taylor swift endorsement. Yeah. And then it's over right. Yes. Well, I can tell you. I don't have an inside track on this. No one really does. But I'm I would be willing to bet a lot of money that Taylor is going to endorse
and I say that because Taylor endorsed Joe Biden in 2,020. So I think it's. It's a reasonable expectation that she will endorse Kamala Harris quite publicly, and we'll see. You know I was saying it because you mentioned the Dnc. In Chicago which I was at. It's my 5th convention.
you know. I haven't seen anything like that. The nearest in terms of level, of not only attendance, but energy and excitement was Obama in 8, and this was much. The energy, level, and excitement was much higher at this 1 2 weeks ago. In fact, I've been saying it was like a 4 day, Taylor Swift concert, and I say that, having never been to a Taylor swift concert. But it was. It just was. The energy is what you saw on television.
You know, the Democrats feel very optimistic now that they're back in the game and they can win this
I just want to touch briefly, and then we'll go into kind of
policy implications, you know, depending on which way this goes. And particularly, we'll focus on Apac in the Asia Pacific region, and how we should be prepared, but just shifting to to trump for a moment back in January, when we were here.
you know, we couldn't help but note his. The criminal charges and convictions. Are those headwinds at all, or are we just we just moved past that, you know, I would say, on all of Trump's legal issues. And he is now a convicted felon also accused of, you know, and convicted of sexual assault by the way. But of all of his legal issues.
In a way, it doesn't really impact voters. It's not going to change anybody's minds. Right? So in the United States, it's really confirmatory meaning. If you're a Republican in the States, you absolutely believe that all of his legal issues are a political witch hunt and an abuse of justice.
Even though he was convicted by a jury. But anyway, and if you're a Democrat, you're just, it's confirmatory. You're convinced he's a criminal, right? So I don't think it's going to move the needle either way. The bigger issue with trump is something that has been really interesting to watch is for the last 6 weeks.
He's really been a bit on the back foot, if you, you know. If you've watched his coverage, you've seen him in, you know if you watch his body language and watched him at rallies. And the reason is that and even he has said this, you know that the Republicans spent so much money and their entire convention in July running against Joe Biden. Right, Joe was the nominee, and so suddenly
Joe's out, and it's Kamala Harris, and I think Trump and his campaign have really been struggling on how best to define her, but also attack her, and because of that, the challenge there that they're that they're having. He's defaulted to what he normally does, which is attack her on race and gender, which is not playing very well in the Us. And so what I was going to say on that is, I do believe.
that he will regain his footing. I think his campaign, and it's already starting, will be back again, and where they will, where he and his team will regain their footing is especially on policy. Her 2 biggest vulnerabilities are the border and cost of living. When he comes out on those issues again, it really resonates with voters. So I do think again, he's been a bit on the back foot. And one last thing, if I can, on his choice of
President, you know, I always like to mention this just because it's so fascinating. This election is so interesting and again unusual in so many ways. But 2 weeks after the Republican Convention.
this has never happened in American politics ever since polling began in the country.
Jd. Vance had a negative 5 favorability rating. You can actually have a negative favorability rating never happened before in American politics. To put it in perspective, Sarah Palin, after her convention with Mccain 2 weeks out positive, 26. Favorability Dan Quayle 2 weeks out. George Bush, Seniors, Vp, pick
a positive 15
JD. Vance. Negative 5. Never happened. But it's almost you would think it's impossible.
Now that was 2 weeks out today. It's worse negative. 10
Jd. Vance has landed like a lead balloon on that campaign, and it has led to a lot of. We were just talking about it right before coming on stage here. It has led to a lot of speculation that trump may drop him from the ticket. I don't think that's gonna happen 55 days out, right? The optics would be terrible. Having said that, you know, we've talked about October surprises. You know. The biggest surprise. One of the biggest, I would argue is if he drops Vance and picks Nikki Haley
huge, you know. Then then that would be a massive advantage. So you never would. Trump want to rule anything out. But I can tell you, Jd, Vance, there's a lot of buyers remorse because he was chosen at a time when trump was so far ahead. Trump picked him when he was so he was really a safety pick. Right? He, trump went with someone that literally is him, but much younger, to carry the mantle of Trumpism into the future.
He didn't pick someone which he would today, I believe that would have broadened his appeal. Like Nikki Haley, Elise Stefanik, Marco Rubio. So so you're kind of stuck with him, as I always say he has to carry him to term but anyway well, he trump does like superlative. So worst Vp pick ever fits. Turning to turning to you know. Why does this matter?
for us here in the region we think about
markets in particular. Paul, you know what we hear through these campaigns is a lot of a lot about what these candidates intend to do. And there's been particularly a lot of talk about what they're going to do day one, you know, problems will be solved.
tariffs will be levied
and you've been thinking a lot about a trump administration in particular, and what it means for us here in the region. Can I ask you to share kind of some of the things you've been thinking about? Yeah.
first, thank you for having me. It's great to be back.
Always like coming out to the region. I spent last week in Mainland China.
talking to a lot of Chinese friends and interlocutors about the Presidential election, about their view of the candidates, and had some interesting takeaways which I'd be glad to share. But let me let me just start with one takeaway which I heard last week, and maybe some of you share this assessment was
asking them about. You know, trump versus Harris, they said. Look, when it comes to China and Us. Policy toward China.
We don't think there'll be much of a difference between Trump and Harris.
Both pursue strategic competition.
That's intensifying. The one thing they hear about Washington, DC. Is the one area where Republicans and Democrats have bipartisan consensus and can agree
is on China policy and the need to get tougher. And so you know who. So away, it doesn't really matter at the end of the day, whether it's Trump or Harris.
So for me, I think you know, I watched this very, very closely, and was China director under President George W. Bush and under President Obama. I see this quite differently. I think there are some really important and meaningful
differences between the 2, and I think it's important to point those out. I think it's a misreading to think otherwise. So you know, when I was working for President George W. Bush got to the end of the administration. The Obama won the Obama Asia team came to me and said, Would you stay on and serve as China director into the 1st year of the Obama administration
can only do that if there's consensus, both on the analysis of China, but also on the approach that they want to use, and what they said was, we want to build on the framework that President Bush put in place around engaging with China and trying to cooperate and move forward in a constructive Us. China relationship
today between the Republicans and Democrats, there is some broad consensus on the analysis of the challenges that China represents. But where there is not agreement is what to do about those challenges, and there I think they have very different views about how to go about strategic competition with China. And if you look at in 3 categories, process substance and approach.
look at, let's look at process for a second in terms of policy formulation we saw in the 1st term under President trump
policy formulation process was often
President trump, sending something out via Tweet
that would contradict with something that his own Secretary of State said on the same topic.
very chaotic right? You look at the Biden Administration, and I think Harris will continue this, on which is especially on the issue of China, is to try to have a very disciplined cohesive interagency approach, getting all of the different cabinet secretaries all on the same sheet of music pursuing a unified policy
substance. If you look at the question of substance, what do we hear out of the trump team from trump himself and his advisors
60% tariffs on China.
This is their signature initiative. When it comes to us, China relations is 60% tariffs.
And of course we saw in the 1st Trump administration the trade war, and the tariffs, and the escalation there.
You don't hear that
from Harris?
Yes, Biden implemented some tariffs in the renewable energy space. I don't expect tariffs would drop tariffs. She'll keep the tariffs that are there. But
the I don't hear plans for major new tariffs on China there may be, but certainly not 60% across the board, and then in terms of approach. And I think this is really where the biggest difference is
the Biden administration, I think, Harris would continue, this
is recognizes that there's strategic competition in us China. There's no doubt about that.
But they're trying to manage that competition.
And so what you see is an approach to compete and compete intensively.
But at the same time there's dialogue. There's diplomacy. They're trying to strike areas of cooperation between the 2 countries. They're looking to find a strategic equilibrium between the United States and China. That may not come next year or the year after. But ultimately they have not basically concluded that the Us. China relationship
is not going to work forever. If you look at the trump team. I think it's much more. In my view. It's not about managing the competition. It's about winning the competition.
I think it's much more 0 sum, thinking
where the Biden Harris team right now talks about
de-risking right to reduce the risk in some narrowly scoped selected areas.
But to keep
space and keep the opportunity for collaboration interact. And even in technology cooperation, where they talk about small yards and tall fences. Now, that may be hard to carry out. But they're trying.
When we talk to trump advisors.
We hear they don't like de-risking.
They like decoupling.
And on technology competition.
They don't like the small yards, tall fences. They like big yards. They want to expand the area of technology that they restrict to China based on national security. So my own view is, there are very meaningful and important differences between Trump and what we would expect in a Harris administration
and Charles is a Harris administration at the policy level, a continuation of
of Biden. How do you view it? I think you know, if you look at what she's running on, she hasn't released a lot of policy which is intentional. Because she's running on the Biden Harris record, and a big part of her message is continuity, right and domestically, you know, I always say whether you like Biden or not. The truth is, with the help of the fed, of course. The Biden Administration's help engineer an incredibly soft landing. So far our economy has been very strong.
Secondly, the stock market
hitting record highs again, as of last month. Right. Biden gets no credit for that, and Harris won either. But again, things have been pretty good in the Us. On foreign policy. If Harris wins, it's again continuity continuing to engage with our allies, particularly NATO in Europe, around the defense of Ukraine, engaging with our allies here in the Indo-pacific and deterring around Taiwan. But also you know, taking perhaps the tech export restriction list
and the tech export restriction effort a bit further. If Harris wins, it's something that Biden, as you all know, taken very far and encouraged, and actually been able to convince some of our allies like the Dutch, and soon the South Koreans to join that effort in in certain technologies. So so that's a slight difference. But overall, it's continuity and I think she's right to run on that.
Thank you. And that does get us into maybe a little bit of deeper, closer. Look at China.
you know, we're in a period of managed competition.
I think the Biden Administration has pursued a strategy that has sort of stabilized the bilateral relationship. I mean, W. What's the how do you see the trajectory?
Paul, because there's certainly plenty of friction points.
Which way does it go from here? Yeah. So I think you know again, I think the strategic competition will intensify. There's no doubt about that.
But you know, as an example of, I think where a difference would be between Harris and Trump, you know. Last week Jake Sullivan, the National Security Advisor, went to Beijing.
He had 14Â h of meetings with Wang Yi, his Chinese counterpart also met with President Xi. Jinping, and he met with the vice chair of the Central Military Commission. And he pushed on issues where you know, the Us.
Says we're not pleased about, you know China's support to Russia
and prosecuting the war in in Ukraine. You know we're concerned about Taiwan and what's going on in the South China Sea. But they also talked about the importance of enhancing the military to military communication channels and other communication channels between the United States and China.
In the Trump Administration
they pulled down. When I was in the Bush administration there was over a hundred official communication channels between the United States and China that carried on into the Obama Administration. President Trump came into office. He pulled all of those down.
There was one channel of communication, and that was Bob Lighthizer, the Us. Trade Rep
and his counterpart, Leo and so you see the Biden Administration trying to build up between our Treasury Department and the Ministry of Finance in China, between the Commerce Department and the Ministry of Commerce in China, between our military establishments, and, of course, at the highest level. And one of the outcomes of Jake Sullivan's meetings last week was that President Biden and President Xi will probably do a video teleconference before the end of the month.
and then they're probably going to meet on the margins of the G 20 or apec. So you know I they have a view in the Biden Administration. I think the Harris Administration would carry this forward, that if you're going to have intense competition.
you necessarily have to have robust communication, because you need to explain what you're doing and why you're doing it.
because otherwise the other side is going to come to the worst conclusion.
and that will lead to a lot of instability.
greater confrontation, and the worst off conflict. So again, I think you know by asking your question, Jeff, where are we today? In the Us. China relationship? It's just another opportunity to kind of explain where I would see the differences. I completely agree with Paul. I think the biggest difference between Trump and Harris on us. China is that. And I would say with, If trump wins
more broadly, more globally. The biggest difference is that trump 2.0 will be much more protectionist than trump one right? He's running on 10% tariffs on everything, 60% Chinese. They're not going to do that across the board. But they will be much more targeted and will use especially targeted towards the EU in a punitive way, but also towards China and use tariffs even much more broadly right? And it's 1 of their top objectives
out the gate in the 1st 90 days. So again, I think that of all the sort of misunderstandings in a way, or perhaps underestimation of what trump might do is this issue of being far more protectionist. Lighthizer is the guy to watch. Lighthizer is
a frontrunner for Treasury, Secretary or commerce? I think he gets commerce. I think trump's gonna give treasury to someone from financial services like Scott Besant or Howard Lutnick. The other guy to watch is Pete Navarro, who's a frontrunner to be chief of staff in the White House to trump
so I've been recommending lighthizers book to everybody. If you know, if you're interested in reading it. But it's called, no trade is free, and it is truly a blueprint of what they didn't get done on trade in Trump one that they want to do in trump to mostly China focused. It's actually a very important book. Unfortunately, Navarro, just out of prison, so he's available for the yes, yes, Navarro, just went straight from prison to the Republican Convention and spoke on the floor. Actually, so
so just timing is everything real quick just to spring bar off of something, Charles said. You know, in terms of the trump administration I agree. Much more protectionist tariffs right, you know, right out the gate. But there is a question, and I think it would behoove all of you to kind of look at this in the early days. If trump wins, there's a big question of what is the purpose of the tariffs right?
Is it
to be used as an effort to get leverage
for some sort of a bargain, some sort of a deal that that Donald trump wants to get with the Chinese? Or is it simply to use the tariffs
as an effort to strategically decouple from China.
And there's a major difference. Now, if you ask Trump advisors like Bob Lighthizer and his team. They will say, those tariffs are going to be used. We are. We've become over reliant on China. China is a strategic competitor. They're a growing rival.
We need for our own security
to decouple from China, and we're going to use those tariffs to do that.
Donald Trump is probably more inclined
to strike a deal.
But what would that deal entail?
What would he be? What would he be trying to achieve?
And these are some of the big question marks. I think that we'll sort of get a sense of in the early days.
Lighthizer knows that trump may want to do a deal. I don't think Bob Lighthizer would want to do a deal. I think he would want to strategically decouple.
and I think he's going to try what he can do to make sure that
Donald Trump doesn't enter into some negotiation that he doesn't see us in us interest. So we'll see how that plays out.
Charles, do you think any foreign policy issues get mentioned in the debate?
I do. I do. I think Trump is running very clearly to end the war in Ukraine within 24Â h, which won't happen, but he will, I think, work
pretty hard to try to bring that war to a more rapid conclusion. That's another key. Foreign policy difference between Trump and Harris. Harris will, you know, want to support Ukraine, and the war takes much longer to end. I do think you know Taiwan will come up very likely in the debate. So yes, I think. Also, you know given that she was never border Czar, by the way, but it doesn't matter, because everybody
think she was. Borders are. Given how important the issue of border security and immigration is for Republican voters. I think you know, immigration will come up, but also the Usmca. And our relationship with Mexico more generally.
And
I guess there are a couple of well, I guess I guess another big difference is just industrial policy. And there are all kinds of sectors. I mean, what do you are there any in particular that stand out? And, Paul, you were just in China, I mean, what should we be looking for? You know, I mean Evs, of course, are top of mind. And I mean, what? What do you think gets hit? Kind of the hardest. Yeah. I mean, there's a big question about what trump, you know might do with regard to the Inflation reduction act which dealt, you know, quite a bit with renewable energies.
And those subsidies around that
you know strategically, the Biden team
put a lot of those subsidies in red States. And so you have state leaders that would be pushing back on the Trump Administration if they wanted to pull back. I do think they will use
some industrial policy potentially more around the defense sector to build up munitions that we have seen are
insufficiently supplied. We've seen that in the context of the Ukraine conflict.
Great super. Well, we're just about a time.
Charles.
any words of wisdom here, as we enter the final stretch of the campaign. And what, what, what we should.
what do you? I guess. What are you watching more closely to see who, as you think about electoral math, and who gets across the line. Yes. So I take 2 things to watch. Really, the the thing that if you really want to predict the outcome of this election. The thing that we should all do or or can do to to that we should watch most closely. Is that it's going to come down to 6 swing States, the blue Wall of Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and the Sun Belt of Georgia, Arizona, Nevada.
Harris, if she, Wins, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, She Wins, the White House. If she loses Pennsylvania she'll win Wisconsin, Michigan. They're very increasingly Democratic States. If she loses Pennsylvania. She's got to win 2 of Georgia Arizona Nevada harder to do right. So in fact, what I've been saying is, if you follow polling in Pennsylvania.
that's gonna tell us who's gonna win? Very important. Actually secondly, again, because this election is about turnout. It's about driving more of your own base to turn out what's been lost in all the coverage of this election because of these big surprises that we've had? Are the issues still matter to voters. And so the 3 issues by far in this election. Number one is the economy. It's always the number one issue in our election.
Unless we're kinetically at war, which we're not. We're in a proxy war with Russia. So the economy number one, and within that, very importantly and this has been proven for the last 40 years, the data sets. There's 2 data sets that resonate the most with voters, the employment or unemployment rate, or any changes. That's why, by much more than Cpi or Gdp, etc. That's why, as a quick aside, whenever there's a good labor print in the United States, the President, whoever it is, runs out and does a press conference.
You know, I brought unemployment down. It really resonates with voter. I think, voters. The labor market is softening, but it's not deteriorating rapidly, right? The second data set that really matters for voters is the price of gasoline which continues to come down. So I think on the economy again, a bit of a wash very quickly. After that, the number 2 issue for voters in this election. If you're a Republican
border security literally, if you're a Democrat, Women's reproductive freedom and or the defense of democracy, they're connected, but slightly different.
So in the end, our elections on November 5, then on November 6, then when we look back with the benefit of hindsight, we will find out which was the bigger driver of turnout border security women's reproductive freedom and the defense of democracy. I believe it'll be the latter. I think Harris wins this. If the election has been decided by that time correct, we may have a slight delay we may have. We may have a tie so I think the main message is, if there are any Pennsylvania voters out there, make sure you have a voting plan. Get your ballots in.
You can vote from abroad
so absolutely great. Well, thank you both. For helping us think these issues through. Thank you to. You all. Enjoy your dinner, and the next session, and
we will. We'll see you next time and enjoy the enjoy tomorrow morning's debate.
and we're back for questions. Yes, and we'll have a QA. Following the next panel. Thank you very much.
