GOP PAC, Talarico Raise Record Cash

Live from Washington, D.C. this is Balance of Power with Joe, Matthew, and Kailey Lines. The energy cease fire between Russia and Ukraine is over if it ever really started in the first place. Welcome to Balance of Power on Bloomberg TV and radio. I'm Kelly Lines in Washington. As Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says, he's ordering attacks on Russian refineries to resume in direct confrontation with President Donald Trump amid a deepening rift between the two over the Russian diesel deal and Starlink access. We'll have the details this hour with Bloomberg's Tyler Kendall at the white House, and we'll talk about how that conflict and the conflict in the Middle East is feeding through to higher energy prices and higher inflation, with hotter than expected PPI data today. We'll have the figures for you and talk about how it's influencing the midterm elections with our political panel and Don Levy from the Siena College Research institute. He'll provide their latest polling figures with just 19 days to go until the midterm elections. We'll have a conversation with Democratic Congressman Greg Stanton of Arizona this hour as well. But we begin, as always, with a check on the markets on this day. And for that, we turn to Charlie Pellet in New York. Hey, Charlie. Thank you very much, Kelly Lines indeed in terms of that PPR report, energy a major part of what's going on. West Texas Intermediate crude now up another 3.2%. We're holding above $98 a barrel. Barrel of Brent above 106 now up by about 2/10 of 1%. The Dow the S&P there both higher NASDAQ Nasdaq 100 index. They're both lower S&P is a baseline up five right now up by about one tenth of 1%. Traders driving a rotation out of those high profile chipmakers into a broader category of stocks the SoCs the Philadelphia Stock Exchange semiconductor index down 2.6%. The Dow up 432 on the Dow gain of 8/10 of 1%. Nasdaq Laura by 4/10 of 1%. Nasdaq 100 down 7/10 of 1%. Interestingly, the Russell 2000 index after several days of declines. Right now we got the Russell 2000 index up by 7/10 of 1%, two year, 4.75% with a five year, 4.90%. The ten year 5.08%. The 30 year 5.42%. Gold up $41 higher by 1% 4146 the ounce, and again West Texas Intermediate crude, up 3.1% 9809. A topic we will be exploring more of right here on Bloomberg balance of power. In the meantime, the International Energy Agency says member countries have agreed to complete the release of 100 million barrels of oil still outstanding from an intervention in March. Among the oil majors, they're lower now ExxonMobil down 1.4%, Chevron down 1.1%. ConocoPhillips lower by one tenth of 1% on the World Economic Forum, could appoint Christine Lagarde as its next chair as soon as next month. And according to Reuters, citing or sources and a headline from the Bloomberg Professional Service, the Harvard endowment has jumped to a record $68 billion, this after a 27% annual return. Recapping S&P 500 index up five, gainer of one tenth of 1% and for on demand news 24 hours a day, subscribe to Bloomberg News Now wherever you get your podcast. I'm Charlie polydactyly lines. It's a Bloomberg Businessweek. All right, Charlie Pellet watching the markets for us. Thank you so much. And we'll have more on that hotter PPI data, uh, this hour, as it's clearly putting a spotlight on how higher energy prices are filtering across the U.S. economy. President Trump, of course, continually promises that those energy costs and prices across the board are going to come down just as soon as the war with Iran is over. That's a message that he repeated on the campaign trail yesterday as he crisscrosses a number of red states yesterday, of course, being Arizona and Montana, where he was taking that message on the road. But of course, the war is not over yet in the Middle East. Nor is the war between Russia and Ukraine. Instead, what we seem to be seeing there is escalation. As the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, told the Financial Times today that he's ordered a resumption in strikes against Russian refineries, the very energy infrastructure that President Trump has asked Ukraine to stop targeting, out of concern for what it's doing to diesel prices, which remain above $6 a gallon here in the U.S.. But Zelensky, of course, is a bit upset with the president right now, in part because of the diesel deal that he struck with Russia last week to allow more diesel on to the global market. And also because as Russia was attacking Ukrainian energy infrastructure over the weekend, Ukraine felt that it couldn't defend itself as quickly as it wanted to because its Star Shield service, which is owned and operated by the Pentagon, was slowed down. It's been quite a saga that has been playing out over the last number of days. And to get more on this, we turn now to the white House, where we find Bloomberg Washington correspondent Tyler Kendall. So, Tyler, it seems that there has been a real break here and that it's widening. Tell us more. Uh, well, when it comes to the conflict in Ukraine, Kailey, we've heard from the Ukrainian President Zelenskyy really, uh, saying that he's going to restart these strikes against Russian oil refineries amid what was a call by President Trump for a supposed energy truce, though it appeared evident that neither side had agreed on what a truce would actually look like before the president announced it. Zelensky said that there had been a three day pause in Ukrainian long range attacks against Russian refineries, but now they are going to move ahead as Russia continues to pummel Ukrainian power plants and gas infrastructure. This is all part of what we have been tracking this point for over a week. In the push and pull of the relationship between Washington and Kyiv, that really came to a head last Friday when President Trump announced that deal for more Russian diesel to hit the market, amid what has been bipartisan pushback to that here in Washington, including the fact that the US Senate had a major win passing that sanctions package bill that tightens so-called secondary sanctions against importers of Russian energy supplies. Indeed, of course, the energy conversation doesn't stop, uh, with the impact between, uh, of the fighting between Russia and Ukraine. It extends to Iran as well. As I mentioned, uh, Tyler, the president once again, is promising that prices are going to come down just as soon as the war is over. He reiterated it to reporters as he was traveling from Arizona to Montana yesterday. Listen. Iran will end very shortly. It's going to be over very shortly and your energy prices will fall very rapidly, very fast. And remember oil is less. Now under Trump, with us taking away the nuclear chance of them destroying, frankly, the world. So he says it will be over shortly. Uh, Tyler. But what we're seeing in the Middle East, and specifically in the Strait of Hormuz right now, seems to be a growing risk against commercial shippers that are trying to get energy products out, not a diminishing one. Right at this point, there's been an uptick in escalation. Kailey, when it comes to the Strait of Hormuz, the New York Times, citing some new tracking data earlier this morning, saying that so far 26 ships have been hit uh, by, uh, projectiles in the Strait of Hormuz so far for October. That is already higher than for the entire month of September. So we've really seen an escalation when it comes to this just overnight. And if you're joining us on Bloomberg Television, you can see some imagery there. We saw a ship sink in the Strait of Hormuz, actually considered to be an incredibly rare event, making yesterday's attack all the more notable as an unknown projectile caused this fire and a 21 person crew to ultimately have to evacuate. But that is only one front where we are seeing potential energy flows end up being risked. Though we should mention that these pre that these flows through the strait have been approaching pre-war levels. And a lot of this is Iran's bid to try to re tighten its grip over the strait. But now we also have the Iranian backed houses escalating their fighting against Saudi Arabia overnight, targeting a Saudi Aramco facility. Of course, Saudi Aramco, the largest energy producer in the region. People familiar with the matter tell us that this attack centered on an office facility. Three floors were damaged, but ultimately oil production was not impacted. But it does go to show how the Houthis continue to target these very sensitive areas when it comes to both civilian and energy infrastructure. And, Tyler, before we go to our political panel on some of these geopolitical issues. I want to ask you as well about the president, uh, what he's doing right now. Anderson, he's speaking at a luncheon in the Rose garden, and he's talking about the midterms. What is what is he told the assembled crowd? Yeah. So, uh, this is, uh, at a luncheon held in the Rose garden, uh, for law enforcement. But he started his remarks by talking about the midterms and foreign policy, very much dovetailing with domestic policy here as Iran and higher prices remain the number one concerns for American voters going into Election Day. He's outlining what his domestic travel schedule could look like next. Says he plans to go to Michigan, of course, a battleground state where there is a very competitive Senate race. Also, Iowa and Kansas typically considered to be red state strongholds, but now both with some very competitive races, I would point out for the Senate seat in Kansas, a Democrat hasn't won that seat since 1932. Then, Kelly, some final words when it comes to the Texas Senate race. He, of course, had endorsed, uh, attorney, uh, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. He says in his remarks that Paxton's a little controversial as we continue to see that that is a closer than expected race. Again, a Democrat hasn't won statewide office in Texas since 1994, and President Trump says that he expects to go back between now and Election Day. All right. A little controversial. Tyler Kendall live on the North Lawn of the white House for us. Thank you so much. And I want to turn back to the escalating tension, it seems, between Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelensky and President Trump as we bring in now our political panel. Rick Davis is with me, a Republican strategist, Bloomberg Politics contributor and Stone Court Capital partner alongside Jim Kessler, today Democratic strategist and executive vice president at Third Way. Uh, Rick, once again, we are seeing this, uh, play out in a very public way, thinking back to the beginning of President Trump's term when we saw, uh, that very public dispute, uh, in the Oval Office in which relations between U.S. and Ukraine deteriorated for some time, and it had seemed that Volodymyr Zelensky was able to repair that, uh, in a meaningful way. Since then, including most recently, meeting with President Trump on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly last month. But it doesn't seem to be going in a positive direction now. And I wonder what you should make, uh, what we should make of President Trump's. Once again, it seems, pivot away from Ukraine and toward Russia. Well, I think he just pivoted away from geopolitical realities that aren't very positive for him and forced into the other not very positive reality of U.S. elections in the next 19 days. So it was it was a clear line of demarcation. When Donald Trump announced that he'd cut a deal, uh, with Vladimir Putin to, uh, start shipping diesel out of, uh, Russia, even though many believe it's illegal based on the sanctions regime that exists here in the United States. But from that point on, literally that day, he started criticizing Zelensky as being a dictator. And you ought to have elections, you know, and he ought to quit, uh, attacking Russian, uh, oil installations. And and he even announced a cease fire, uh, of, uh, attacking energy resources in both countries, except that evidently he hadn't talked to either the countries about it. Uh, and then what happens? Right. It all goes to pot when, uh, Vladimir Putin pays no attention to Donald Trump and starts attacking the energy resources in the Ukraine. And then obviously, today's news that Ukraine is, uh, counterattack. The reality is Trump has one reality that he needs for the elections, which is, hey, I got you lower diesel prices, which was all of this. But he was willing to throw one of our best allies and some somebody who has really fought to protect Europe on his own border, uh, under the bus. And I think voters get the joke on this. They're much more sophisticated about geopolitics because of the impact on things like oil prices, uh, and, uh, gas prices and diesel prices than they otherwise would be in any other election. Well, yeah. And to that end, it was noteworthy in the Iowa Senate debate that we saw earlier this week, Jim, to see the Republican nominee, Ashley Hinson, actually saying, yes, we need to bring diesel costs down, but I don't think we should be doing. I'm paraphrasing her words here, Russia any favors in order to do it. Do you think that that's where the electorate is that they. Yes, they want to see their diesel and gas prices, uh, lower, but they aren't necessarily in favor of making Russia a beneficiary of that alongside them. Right. So let's just put aside the Republicans see of Donald Trump siding with Putin over Zelensky right now. We'll just set that aside. Is it as a given politically, this is an 8020 issue in favor of Zelensky in Ukraine. Americans overwhelmingly believe that Putin and Russia are the bad actors and that Ukraine are the heroes. But we have a desperate president who is grasping at straws because everything is going in the wrong direction, and a lot of it is going in the wrong direction because of actions that he alone took. So we have rising inflation, persistent and rising inflation. And you can name several Trump actions, the tariffs, the continued uncertainty and the war with Iran in Iran. And most importantly, voters can name them as well. So when they are sour about the economy and sour about the mood, and they believe that there is a person who actually has done those things, they are going to take it out on that individual individual. And that is Trump and the Republican Party. So I was glad to hear that, um, Iowa candidate for Senate saying what she needed to say. But, you know, there's also there's a gravitational pull in this election, and it's very hard for Republicans to get away from Donald Trump. And he is down between 5 and 10 points. In Iowa, he's an unfavorable president there. So you know there's trouble. Yeah. And we're seeing that borne out by the breaks we're seeing from the likes of Ashley Hinson or Mike Rogers talking about this issue and, uh, the war in Iran and gas prices as well. And you're also seeing it in some other places you might not expect, including in the district of Congressman Greg Murphy in North Carolina, who represents a district that Trump won by a I believe it was 14 points in 2024. And Trump will actually be nearby when he travels to North Carolina. Uh, next Tuesday, he's out with a new ad talking about essentially the cost of living and these issues. Listen, I'm Greg Murphy. I drive to D.C. and across eastern North Carolina all the time. Gas prices are too high. I get it. As a husband, I know groceries are very expensive. As a doctor and a patient, I know health care isn't affordable. So I'm working to bring down costs. Aside from, uh, my personal question as to whether or not only a husband would understand high, uh, grocery prices. Uh, Rick, I wonder what you make of the messaging here and the decision making on the behalf of his campaign that they need to put out an ad like this again in the third district in North Carolina, which Trump won by 14 points just two years ago. Yeah. First of all, um, um, the, uh, Republican Campaign Committee, uh, for the House is now moving money, almost $4 million into, uh, districts like Murphy's and in some that Trump won by 21. So, uh, I think everybody believes that there's some kind of wave tsunami. Call it what you want, but at the end of the day, uh, it's districts like this that if they don't isolate Trump and start talking about cost of living, um, that tsunami can roll right over them. Well, so, Jim, when we talk about the money that is flowing into a district like Greg Murphy's or a Trump 2021 district, are you concerned that Democrats may be spreading themselves too thin by too many long shot opportunities and and spreading their resources out too far, rather than concentrating it into areas where a flip may be easier. Right. That is that is a the eternal question. Um, in this cycle, I am not worried about that, Kayleigh, because this is my 19th cycle election cycle in Washington, D.C.. I've seen two other cycles like this 1994 on the Republican side. That was Newt Gingrich, 2006 on the Democratic side. And it was the confluence of of voters very, very unhappy with the current administration and corruption. So in 1994 is like the House banking scandal. And in 2006 it was Congressman Mark Foley. And like sexual allegations being swept under the rug. And we're seeing that here. And you just have to look at the I'm a Democrat. You just have to look at the way the other side is acting. And if the other side is rushing money to protect a plus 14 district, believe them. Believe them that they have real, real trouble there. I am expecting, yes, I'm expecting a blue tidal wave. I think Democrats are going to be over 230 seats, and I think Democrats are going to win the Senate this time around. The situation is just too bad and Republicans realized it too late. Wow. All right. Quite the prediction from Jim Kessler. And Jim will be checking back in with you and Rick over the course of the next 19 days and beyond, once we have those final results in hand, our political panel today. Thank you both so much for joining me. And we'll have more on this midterms climate and what the polling is bearing out right now and how much it should be trusted. As we turn to Dan Levy, who runs the Siena College Research Institute. That's up next on Balance of Power on Bloomberg TV and radio. And make sure to subscribe to the Balance of Power podcast, Apple, Spotify, anywhere else you get your podcasts, you can get it there and listen anytime on Bloomberg.com. Coming up on balance of power, House speaker Mike Johnson is pouring cold water on strong polls for the Democrats. We'll have more. Up next on Bloomberg. It's 121 on Wall Street. We do check markets all day long here at Bloomberg. Tech stocks lower as chips sell off. The Dow and S&P 500 index are higher right now. Looking at an 11 point gain close to session highs on the S&P were at 7730. That is an advance now of one tenth of 1%. Dow industrials up for 79 up by about 9/10 of 1%. Nasdaq go lower by 68 points down 3/10 of 1%. The Nasdaq 100 down 5/10 of 1%. Worries about the durability of the IE investment cycle are intensifying a debate about whether bonds are offering value. The two year, 4.73% with a five year, 4.90%, the ten year 5.08% and the 30 year 5.42%. Gold is up 1.1%. 4150 the ounce West Texas Intermediate crude above $98 a barrel, now up by 3.2%. Barrel of Brent, $106 a barrel, down now by less than one tenth of 1%. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing delivered a better than expected revenue outlook, projecting sales of as much as $54.3 billion in the December quarter. Shares of Taiwan Semi they are down 2.5%, following other chip stocks lower. Nvidia down 1.9%. Advanced Micro Devices down 3.9%. All of this with the Sox lower now by 2.2%. Rhonda Van news 24 hours a day. Subscribe to Bloomberg News Now wherever you get your podcast. I'm Charlie Patterson at Kailey Leinz is a Bloomberg Businessweek. All right, Charlie Pellet watching the markets for us on this Thursday, October 15th, putting us just 19 days away from Election day. The midterms are almost upon us. I guess for voters in a number of states across the country. They've already begun as early voting, uh, is open in a number of states and is going to be open in even more next week, including on Monday. Texas, which is somewhere that President Trump has focused a lot of his energy thus far. He's made multiple trips there. Just this month, he just told, uh, an assembled group at a white House Rose garden luncheon that he would travel back to Texas if he needed to. In addition to stops he's planning in the likes of Michigan, Kansas, Kentucky and Iowa. But on Texas, it especially is in the spotlight today in light of some new fundraising figures from the Democratic Senate nominee, James Talarico, whose campaign announced it raised $64 million in the third quarter, a record third quarter for any Senate candidate ever. Of course, more money than Talarico has raised has been spent against him on behalf of the Republican Senate nominee, Ken Paxton. This is a Senate race. That ultimate price tag could be in the range of about half $1 billion, and all of the money is feeding into a race that is incredibly tight. If you look at the latest polling from the Siena College Recon Miller poll, it finds that James Talarico is up against Ken Paxton by four points in their October poll, 48 to 44%. But that margin is narrower than the September poll, in which Talarico was up by six points. So let's get into that and other polls that we are watching as we turn to Don Levy, who's director of the Siena College Research Institute and is back with us on Bloomberg TV and radio. Don, it's good to have you back on balance of power. It's been far too long. What exactly is happening in Texas right now, especially with the money that we are seeing spent? Uh, as we get into the late innings, the late hours here. Is it the money that is leading to a tightening of Talarico edge in your poll? Well, it's hard to say. I mean, certainly Texas is ground zero. Um, and the Democrats are excited beyond belief that they might actually pull out Texas, having tried in Texas the last couple cycles, unsuccessfully, of course. Uh, but it does appear as though in our poll we saw a couple of points worth of tightening. Still in poll after poll, Talarico has maintained a small lead. So quite possibly his absence from the campaign trail with the flow. Um, for, uh, about ten days and the amount of money that's being poured in, most especially, of course, to negative campaigning. We're looking at a battle right now that is ultimately going to be turnout, turnout, turnout in Texas. There's no question that Republicans are, uh, favor Ken Paxton, the Democrats, uh, favorite James Talarico. So we're fighting on the margins. We're fighting in Texas over the independent voters. And we're, of course, fighting over the Hispanic voters that move towards President Trump in 2024 and now have moved back in the Democratic column to some extent. But whether they're going to turn out, uh, at the rate at which we're seeing them in the polls is yet to be determined and may very well be one of the ingredients that decides this race in Texas. You say to some extent, Don, can you quantify that, that move, that swing back, uh, toward the Democratic direction we're seeing among Latino voters? Well, uh, amongst Latino voters in Texas, uh, we've seen leads, uh, between eight points to as many as 30 points, uh, for Democratic candidates among Latinos in Texas. So this is a movement of about 15 points from where they were in 2024. Why is that the case? Well, certainly, uh, many Latinos tell us that they thought that President Trump was going to solve some economic problems that they faced in Texas. And at the same time, some Latinos are telling us that the manner in which Ice is conducting themselves in Texas and southern Texas is something that they've had personal experience with. 56% of Texans told us recently that they think that Ice has gone too far. That's well over 65% of Latinos are telling us that, uh, so things are working against Republican candidates, uh, in Texas right now, we see the president's approval ratings desperately underwater, even in a state like Texas that he carried so comfortably in 2024. Well, of course, you have a high profile Latino nominee for statewide office in Texas as well. Gina Rosa is the Democratic nominee for governor, running against the incumbent, Greg Abbott. How much, Don, are Gina in a host those numbers and James Talarico, those numbers tied together. I guess another way of phrasing it is are they both dependent on one another to do well? Well, certainly there's a relationship, uh, in Paul, after Paul, we've seen, uh, about, uh, 4 to 7 point difference between how Talarico is doing and how, you know, us is doing with with Talarico doing that, that 4 to 7 points better. So it appears as though quite possibly Talarico is coattails are what are, uh, positively impacting Gina, you know, so but you're looking at someone, a state legislator who has gone from being virtually unknown, uh, to as many as half of Texans to right now being progressively more well known and giving, uh, Abbott a real run for his money. We've seen poll after poll with either, you know, OSU having a small lead. Uh, Abbott now in some polls, his has gotten as much as up by four. Still, with that margin of error, I don't think anybody at the beginning of the cycle thought that this would be a contest. In fact, we ask Texans, even in the same poll that we found, you know, also, you know, virtually tied with Abbott. When we say, who do you think's going to win? Uh, Texans feel as though Abbott is going to win at 35 and more so by 35 points. So still, there's a belief in Texas, um, that, uh, Greg Abbott will prevail even when the polls have him dead. Even when you flip that question around to Paxton Talarico. Uh, not necessarily who you voted for, but who do you think's going to win? It's a tossup. So it's within, um, everybody's, uh, imagination, uh, in Texas that, uh, actually a Democrat, this Democrat, James Talarico, could beat Ken Paxton. You look at their favorite ability ratings, uh, continue to see positive favorability ratings for Jamestown. Rico. Uh, negative favorability ratings to the tune of about 13 to 15 points for Ken Paxton. Obviously, that's one of the numbers that both parties are trying to, uh, to work with. Certainly, the Paxton campaign is seeking to drive up negatives. And James Talarico thinking that that can move some of these independent voters who right now are on the margins. Mhm. Well, as you talk about uh, Democrats imagining dreaming in Texas, Don, we've, we've seen them do so before and have their dreams crushed. Just look back to that. O'Rourke, for example, in the race against Ted Cruz in 2018. And it speaks to this wider, uh, conversation as to whether or not Democrats should be believing the polls that they are seeing. That shows them with an advantage, not just in Texas, but in other red states. If we look toward Iowa, Alaska, even Kansas, now we're talking about, uh, and that goes for not just Senate races, House races, too. When we heard from the House speaker, Mike Johnson, who is, of course, on the road in this final stretch, uh, of the midterms, he was talking in Corpus Christi, Corpus Christi, Texas, this week about how he doesn't necessarily believe the polls. This is what he said. Don, I'll have you respond. And I'm telling you, something is happening right now. It feels like 2024 to me. I'm telling you, the polling is not reflecting this. The polling is not letting everyone know what's really happening. There are, understandably, Republicans. There are oversampling Democrats. How many of you have an answer? A political poll in the last six months? No. Nobody. He speaks to something we have seen in the past few cycles, specifically and under polling around the popularity of President Trump and Republican candidates. So, Don, what would you tell the speaker as to whether or not he should trust what the figures are saying? Well, I doubt whether the speaker is going to call me up, but, uh, we in in the last sight if he's listening right now, if there was error in our polling and we poll extensively all over the country with between 2 and 3 points, um, in favor of a Democratic oversampling. Now, we've taken steps in terms of our sampling methodology, the manner in which we we asked the survey to seek to address that. But even if we are off by 2 to 3 points, most of these races, many of which were not thought to be competitive at the beginning of a cycle, are indeed competitive. When you have, uh, Sherrod Brown up by three in Ohio when you have a toss up in Iowa. Uh, when you have, uh, a lead for the Democrat in Alaska, we're not even talking about North Carolina anymore, which was a prime race at the beginning of the cycle and now is seemingly conceded to the Democrats from the Republicans. And Maine, we have as a tossup. So I think that, uh, the polling is, uh, fairly consistent across not only polls like ours and the York Times Siena poll or the Recon Marciano poll. Um, but even we saw polls today from Fox having the president's approval rating desperately underwater, in fact, more underwater than our most recent poll. The president has an effect on this race. Many voters, uh, are desperately unhappy with his, uh, job performance, most especially when it comes to the cost of living. Voting is one chance that these voters have to express that. We know that the Democrats in general, the Democratic Party, is not in and of itself, soaring in popularity. What is on the top of mind of voters is they want to change. They want their lives to be better. And so they have an opportunity to vote, uh, more so for a change than for the continuity of the party that is currently in power in the Oval Office, as well as both houses of Congress. And just finally on this. Uh, Don, do you see burnout and enthusiasm gap right now? The speaker was kind of suggesting there is a difference in who is enthusiastic to speak to a pollster or participate, uh, in a survey like that. But is do you see more enthusiasm on the Democratic side right now? Because that has implications for turnout. We do. We asked people, um, how likely it is that they're going to vote. Um, the numbers of Democrats who say that they are almost certain are very likely is somewhat higher, not overwhelmingly, but 5 to 8 points higher than the Republicans who speak to us. And when we ask them how enthused we ask them specifically, how enthusiastic, how excited are you about the upcoming election? We do see more enthusiasm amongst Democrats who are taking the poll than Republicans. And you have to remember, uh, we tend to talk about American voters as being either Democrats or Republicans. There is a lot of independents out there, and ultimately it's the independents. Whether we're talking about Texas or any other state who we're going to decide this race. And amongst independents who sometimes tend to vote Republican, who sometimes tend to vote Democratic, uh, where they are right now is overwhelmingly unhappy with the direction of the country, overwhelmingly disapproving of the job that the president is doing. So despite the fact that they're not big fans of the Democrats. They are fans. Yeah. Don Levy of the Siena University Research Institute, thank you. It's 140 on Wall Street. We do check markets all day long here. Bloomberg Traders are driving a rotation out of high profile chipmakers and into a broader category of stocks. And right now we have got the S&P 500 index at the best level of the day of 18 to 7737. That is a gain now of just about 2/10 of 1%. Dow industrials also pushing higher a 1% gain on the Dow up 520 points on Nasdaq is down 31 for the Nasdaq Composite Index, a drop of one tenth of 1%. The Nasdaq 100 index down by 4/10 of 1%. All of us with the stocks. The Philadelphia Stock Exchange's semiconductor index off session lows but still remaining down by 1.9%. The two year, 4.75%, the five year, 4.89%, the ten year, 5.08% and the 30 year 5.41%. Gold up 1.1% 4151 the ounce and West Texas Intermediate crude up 3.2%. 9813 a barrel barrel of Brent, the global benchmark, down by one tenth of 1% right now, little changed at 105 87 a barrel. Rocket lab shares are plunging now by 10% after the company delayed the debut of its neutron rocket, pushing the vehicle's first flight to 2027. Tesla is planning to unveil its new Roadster sports car today, which can fly. This will happen at a SpaceX rocket testing facility near Waco, Texas. Tesla shares ahead of that down by 1.6%. Again, recapping here. S&P 500 index higher by 20 points, up by about 3/10 of 1% on Charlie Pallet. And that Kailey Lyons is a Bloomberg Businessweek. All right Charlie Pellet in New York. Thank you so much. I'm Kailey Lines in Washington where President Trump actually is today. He's spending the day at the white House, taking a break from what has been a breakneck pace of travel in this run up to the midterm elections, which of course are less than three weeks away. He has more stops on the books for tomorrow, Saturday, next week after yesterday, having spent time in Montana and Arizona. Now he was in Bullhead City, Arizona, of course, a state that he did win in the 2024 presidential election by about five and a half points and touted that as part of his messaging. Listen, we won Arizona by the largest margin. Think of it. We won Arizona in a landslide. The largest number of votes ever gotten. Remember when all the machines were broken? We had a wonderful candidate. And all those machines were broken on election day. And you had a judge that said, we don't care. We're not going to let you do it again. The president did get 1.77 77 million votes in Arizona in 2024, coming away with 52.2% of the vote to Kamala Harris is 46.7%. But that was two years ago, and the climate is a bit different now. And the president, of course, is suffering under a low approval rating across most polls. So as we consider the climate in Arizona and across the board for Republicans and Democrats, we turn now to a Democratic representative. Congressman Greg Stanton of Arizona's fourth district is joining us. He's a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, as well as the China Select Committee. Congressman, welcome back to Bloomberg TV and radio. Sir. It's great to have you back on the program. Uh, aside from the claims that the president made around how elections have been run in Arizona in the past and some unsubstantiated claims that previous cycles saw a rigging of those elections, he did indeed win Arizona in 2024. Voters in the state did choose him over Harris. How has the climate in Arizona changed in the two years since? Well, let me make this first point. Uh, Trump lost Arizona in 2020. He won Arizona in 2024. There is no election denialism on our side of the aisle. It's only Donald Trump who says the election is rigged when he loses. But it's perfectly fine when he, uh, when he wins. Uh, this is a huge problem in America that he has denigrated the election system all over America, particularly here in Arizona. People have lost confidence. They don't trust the elections because of his constant denigration. But it is, uh, totally inconsistent that he switches depending on whether he won or lost. Now, as to the environment here, look, uh, Democrats are going to do very well here in Arizona. We are going to add two or more new members of Democratic members of the United States Congress. And it is directly related not just to Donald Trump's policies that are increasing costs in the American people, but the American people are angry that the Republicans in Congress have just rolled over and done nothing to stop Donald Trump. They haven't done their jobs in the in the United States Congress of oversight or checks or balances. So they're really mad at Donald Trump and his policies, but they're even more mad at the Republicans in Congress for not doing their job. Well, and obviously, you haven't been just spending time talking about these things at home in Arizona. I know you've been on the trail a bit yourself. Uh, trip to Iowa. You're heading to Pennsylvania later this month as the chair of the new Dem coalition's political arm. And we know that, uh, there are opportunities that Democrats are spending in places like Iowa, for example, Marinette Miller-Meeks district, or in Pennsylvania, where there's a number of Republicans who look, uh, vulnerable this cycle. But how do you guarantee that you aren't overreaching and manage expectations. Do you see a risk that you and your new dem colleagues, your Democratic colleagues at large, could end up disappointed by the sheer number of seats that have been put out there as potential flips? I am the chair of the New Democratic Caucus Political Action Committee, so I work on the political side to try to get as many moderate Democrats electorate around the country. It is these moderate Democrats that are going to win in the most competitive seats because they're able to not only hold Democratic votes, but get independents to support them and moderate Republicans. That is the formula to win in these most competitive seats, including seats that Trump won in previous elections. And when it comes to managing expectations or overreach, I would politely argue that that is mostly a function of political talking heads. We're in the arena. We're the ones running these elections. We're not talking about any of that. We are just fighting to to support these candidates. They help these candidates in their fight to win in these toughest seats. So I have no idea how many seats we are going to win. All I know is that poll after poll shows us winning right now in Republican majority seats, including seats up to our plus eight are plus nine. If we can fight right through the end, run through the tape, if you will. I think we're going to have a very strong election night, regain the majority and make a Ken Jeffries, speaker of the United States House of Representatives. Well, as you speak, congressman, of electing moderate Democrats, there are, of course, uh, some candidates in this cycle who wouldn't easily fit into the moderate basket, who are, in fact, quite progressive in some cases, actual members of the Democratic Socialists of America. And your colleague, uh, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the congresswoman from New York, is actually in Michigan today rallying alongside Abdul El-Sayed, the Democratic Senate nominee in Michigan, who, while not actually a DSA member, is obviously quite progressive and has become a kind of boogeyman. Uh, in this election cycle, someone that Republicans are having all Democrats answer for. Do those kind of candidates make your job harder, and your goal of electing more moderates to Congress harder? No. The Democratic Party is a big tent party. But the truth is the majority winning the majority, which is what our goal needs to be. We are going to win the majority because of the moderate candidates winning in the toughest seats. Republican majority seats, seats that Trump won. Uh, candidates that are with military service backgrounds, doctors, teachers, uh, people with incredible professional, successful backgrounds who have come forward to, uh, be a patriot and fight to restore checks and balances in the United States of America. Those candidates, who tend to be more moderate and will be part of our coalition. They are the ones that are going to deliver the majority for the American people. A lot of what you are talking about has to do with Democratic primaries. Earlier on in the primary season, where, uh, DSA candidates were able to win in heavily blue areas, overwhelmingly Democratic districts. And so, you know, that's interesting to to talk about and think about. But it doesn't help the majority because those seats go from a Democratic candidate to another Democratic candidate. What we're talking about is the ability to be Republicans in Republican majority seats. That's how you win the majority. The biggest story on the day after the election is not going to be about DSA candidates. It's going to be about the fact that Democrats won the majority. Akeem Akeem Jeffries will be the next speaker, and we're going to restore checks and balances to our United States government. That is the biggest story of this political season. All right. Well, your optimism is well noted. Congressman, I want to ask you before we let you go about some geopolitical questions as well. Given your seat on the Foreign Affairs Committee, we are seeing once again a rift playing out in public between the Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelensky and President Trump, who, of course, last week announced this deal with Russia to bring more Russian diesel onto the global market. There's the question of what exactly happened with Star Shield and the slowing of Ukraine's ability to access internet service. Uh, through that mechanism, what role the administration might have played, what, if anything, can Congress do, uh, about this? If President Trump decides that he no longer is willing to support Ukraine to the same extent that the US has been thus far? Well, he's effectively already made that decision. It's clear that when Trump became president, the solid support that the United States had provided the people of Ukraine in their own defense because it was an illegal and horrific invasion by Putin's Russia into Ukraine. Yes. It's clear that Donald Trump, uh, changed American policy in that regard. But let's talk about that diesel deal. Did you imagine now we're going to be putting billions of dollars into Putin's Russia? Uh, even though that is illegal, it's completely self-defeating. And there's no indication that that will actually reduce diesel prices here in the United, uh, in the United States. But we are going to sell out our partners, uh, and sell out the people of Ukraine, put their lives at risk, uh, for the possibility of of the possibility that diesel prices may be reduced, but do so in a way in which we are helping Putin, helping putting billions of dollars into Russia. That is totally unacceptable. It's the why. It's the reason why Democrats and Republicans in both the Senate and the House have responded so strongly in a negative way, telling Trump, don't do this deal. And oh, by the way, it's already illegal for diesel to come into the United States from Russia. There's a 2022 law that was passed in a bipartisan way that says until Russia fully removes itself from Ukrainian territory. We cannot allow Russian diesel into the United States. So it is both wrongheaded. It's immoral and it's illegal. What Trump is proposing to do. All right, Congressman. Thanks for joining us. On balance of power, that's Democratic Congressman Greg Stanton of Arizona's fourth district. And as we have this conversation around diesel prices and the president's attempts to bring it lower, you can see the result that those higher prices are having. Having across the economy borne out in today's PPI data, much hotter than expected wholesale inflation, in fact, the fastest rate we have seen in about four years. So for more on this, we turn to reed picker, who is our team leader for U.S. economy coverage here at Bloomberg. So read these figures are very striking. Even the core metric exiting out food and energy is up 5% year on year. Does that speak to the fact that it is no longer exclusively an energy story? It's a great point. So in today's data, it's primarily an energy story, but you are starting to see those signs of that energy shock spilling into other parts of the economy. So when you see transportation and warehousing costs up, when you see food prices up, when you see a wholesaler margins up, that is the kind of thing that when we think about the pipeline, inflationary pressures that we've been watching for. Um, those are the types of things that we're looking for. And when you put that with yesterday's CPI data, where we also saw broad base strength in terms of inflation and that core measure also coming in hotter, it certainly supports the case for for rate hikes in the future. Yeah I guess it's a question of whether that rate hike is going to come in a couple of weeks just before the midterms, or if the fed might decide, uh, to wait until December. They have other data that they're going to be considering when making that decision to including the retail sales figures. Uh, this is in large part also a story around gas, right, because you had a very different figure on the headline than on the control group. That's a great point. So when we think about retail sales, it's always important to remember that it is not adjusted for inflation. So given that we saw such a steep increase in gasoline prices in September, that was really reflected in the retail sales data. So we saw gasoline surge in the CPI. We saw gasoline surge at the gas tank at that at the pump. Um, seeing prices like around $4 and 50 a gallon. Um, and when you looked at the details of this report, it wasn't all bad news. There were still some signs of discretionary spend. So, for instance, we saw, um, consumers spending at restaurants. We saw them spending on furniture. Um, but that core gauge that really strips out some of these more volatile components and gives a better sense of underlying demand. Um, was much slower than that headline number, but I would want to put this in the context of the prior month. Um, retail sales can be quite volatile from month to month. And August was this a blockbuster number? And we really saw Americans splurge across a wide range of merchants. Um, so just because we see some weakness in that underlying number now, yes, maybe growing signs that inflation is starting to bite and that we just not keeping up with inflation. Um, but at the same time it could also be consumers just taking a breather. All right. We are helping lead our U.S. economy team here at Bloomberg. Thanks for joining us on this early edition of Balance of Power. That'll do it for me for now. But I'll see you back for the late edition of Balance of Power at 5 p.m. eastern. In the meantime, Bloomberg Businessweek daily is straight ahead on this PPI day right here on Bloomberg TV and drink. And make sure to subscribe to the Balance of Power podcast on Apple, Spotify, anywhere else you get your podcasts. Plus, listen anytime on Bloomberg.com.