This is an audio transcript of the FT News Briefing podcast episode: ‘Swamp Notes: Harris and Trump meet on the debate stage’
Sonja Hutson
Hey there. It’s Sonja Hutson. This week, we’re doing something a little different on Swamp Notes. It’s been just a few days since Donald Trump and Kamala Harris had their first debate. And we thought it might be a good time to hear from all of you. So we’re going to play you a recording of a webinar that happened this week where FT subscribers, got to ask our panelists a bunch of questions. The FT’s Peter Spiegel hosted the event and I’ll let him take it from here.
[MUSIC PLAYING]
Peter Spiegel
We are here for our post-debate session with our subscribers with FT Live to talk about the presidential race. I am joined by our greatest of experts on U.S. politics here at the FT. Lauren Fedor is our US political correspondent based in Washington. Lauren was, well, covered the, Atlanta for the famous Biden debates debacle and also was traveling with the vice-president ahead of the Philadelphia debate. So she’s been on the ground and gave us some color on that. Rana Faroohar is in the, is in Chicago. She is our global business correspondent and one of our Swamp Notes columnists and joined me on the night to give live commentary on the debate. She is a proud daughter of the state of Indiana. So we’ll have some Midwestern sensibility to share with us. And from across the ocean, Gideon Rachman, who’s our chief foreign affairs columnist, can give us the international perspective on the craziness that is here in the US. Gideon joined Lauren in Milwaukee for the Republican convention. So he got some firsthand view of our craziness as well. But Lauren, let me start with you, because as I said, you covered both the Trump-biden debate in Atlanta and then were traveling with the vice-president in Pennsylvania ahead of the debate. You know, a lot has been made of Harris coming in there with a strategy to beat Trump and that he fell for it. To what extent do you think that was pre-planned and what were you picking up from, from the campaign going into Philadelphia? And I guess, to what extent did they, did they do what they wanted to do?
Lauren Fedor
I think there was a lot of planning and a lot of preparation that went into what we saw on Tuesday. The vice-president headed out to Pittsburgh, where she set up a debate camp, something like four or five full days in advance and did just that and really hunkered down and went through the motions. I mean, this is something that we know about her from her time as vice-president, as well as a senator. She is someone who likes to be prepared. I think there have been stories sometimes about her being a demanding boss because she wants everyone else to be prepared, too. So in that sense, it is not surprising that she went in with all of her notes and all of her preparation. I do think, though, that part of the strategy was to get under his skin a little bit. And you saw that right from the get go. You know, she walked out on the stage. She went over to shake his hand. And the body language alone. You could tell that he was a bit unnerved by it or wasn’t expecting in some way and was a bit awkward television. But clearly it set the tone, I think, for the next 90+ minutes.
Peter Spiegel
Rana, I guess the question I have for you, though, is — and you and I have talked to this both in person over drinks here in Brooklyn, but also in Swamp Notes — is what kind of impact it’s going to have, because I think well, let me speak for myself. I have always seen some of these watershed moments as this is the moment when first Biden, but then, then Harris is going to pull away, be it an indictment or a conviction or the convention, which went very well for her, but the numbers never seemed to move. So I guess my question to you is, given everyone’s assessment that did she did incredibly well on this and Trump really did badly. Everyone, including Karl Rove and other Republicans, are saying this. Does it move the dial or this could be another one of the moments where we’re sitting three, six weeks from now and saying, yeah, remember that, that, that debate thing? It didn’t really it didn’t really move the dial. Where do you think it’s headed on that on that regard?
Rana Faroohar
Question: I guess I’ll start by on the upside for Harris kind of amplifying what Lauren just said. I thought that first handshake was almost the diametric opposite of what Hillary had to deal with, with the Lurk. Remember the, you know, Trump kind of lurking from behind and the sense of him intimidating her and diminishing her in some way. And so one of the things that Harris had to do right away was get the visuals right, get the tone right, And that she did. And it’s important for anybody, as we saw with Biden’s failed debate with Trump. But it’s particularly important for a woman, I think, because there is not, we don’t yet have a model for what female presidential power looks like. But, boy, I thought Harris, you know, set some some interesting lines in the sand there and it was very effective. So in that sense, I think it did move the needle because one of the things, Peter, that I think she needed to do was just feel and look and act presidential and the tonal issues, particularly in an age of television. I mean, we saw this from Nixon, Kennedy, right? We’ve seen this for decades. That kind of thing is really important. She got the split screen, right? She got that sort of quizzical almost I’m looking at you with, with kind of mild humor and amazement that I even have to be on stage with you as an unserious person, as she put it, you know, during the DNC. So that part she did well. But to your point about is it going to matter in polling later, we have to think about who’s watching the debate. It’s people like us. It’s the FT readership, but it’s not necessarily the person in Indiana that has already decided long ago that they were going to vote for Trump. And there’s not a whole lot that’s going to change their minds. One thing that I am a little bit concerned about, just beyond that sort of dug-in partisanship that we know so much about in the US and the fact that there seems to be this 47% Trump ownership, that, that is not moving. I’m a little concerned about some of the concessions that Harris has had to make to, to the more centrist part of the party, to the more, the business elite, which on the one hand is politically astute, you know, not coming out and saying, yes, I love antitrust and I’m backing Lina Khan or saying, you know what, I’m going to I’m going to not tax capital gains as much as you might have thought. These are good things in one way, but they’re also making working people, particularly some of those labor union supporters in swing states think, well, now, wait a minute. How much air is there between Biden’s policies, Bidenomics, which love it or hate it, but the working people and labor unions did love it and what Kamala is bringing. And I think that’s going to be a very fine needle for her to thread going forward. And I’m hearing just one final thought. I’m hearing from folks in labor unions that they’re, they’re seeing a little bit of wavering, softening in some key counties in places like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin.
Peter Spiegel
It’s interesting you say that, because on Wall Street here, we hear the opposite, right? We’re hearing those anti-Biden because they thought he was just too pro-union to anti-business are much more open to her as, as a centrist Democrat in that regard. I also just, before I turn to you, Gideon, I just want to touch on something that, that Rana, that you said that I think is really important but slightly disagree with. Because I think you said that most people who are tuning in are people already made their decision. I think it’s true, but you made this point about looking presidential. And I think there is particularly a voter and to overgeneralize, I think it is probably a baby boomer male voter. And those are the kind of voters who told pollsters in 2016 that they’re going to vote for Hillary Clinton. But actually, were like, do I want a woman to be president of the United States, to be perfectly blunt about it. (Yeah.) And I think she, her, her presentation looking presidential and taking on Trump in that debate really could go to that that vote and win them back. And I think, I think in that regard, it could have could have real impact. Gideon, let me turn to you. I just want to first of all, say the audience, we are taking questions from the audience. We have a whole set of questions coming in already, not only here from the US, but in the UK, where Gideon is, in Australia, Hong Kong and of course, the most important country for US politics, Belgium. But let me take one from the audience. Gideon and I were both Brussels correspondents at one point. That’s the reference there. There was one on the issue of geopolitics, which obviously Gideon, is your expertise, and we talked about that when you were in Milwaukee here during the convention is, there was a session that has gone largely unnoticed about Gaza and on Ukraine, which I suspect you and I, as the two people who care about US foreign policy, focused on, which I thought was really interesting. On Ukraine, Trump could not bring himself to say, I am going just, I want Ukraine to win the war. And on Gaza, boy, Kamala really needs to thread the needle. I mean, Harris basically said, I support Israel, but which is a very difficult needle to thread. The question from, from Eric brutally??? Is, Do the American people care about geopolitics when it comes to, to a presidential election? So can I ask you to deal with both things, what you heard on geopolitics from the debate, but also then talk a bit about whether you think it matters when it comes to Election Day.
Gideon Rachman
Yeah, I mean, I think, yes, that, that moment where he was asked twice actually, did he want Ukraine to win and he wouldn’t say yes, was very telling. And I think, you know, it will have, it has been picked up actually in talk shows. In Moscow, they liked that. They noticed. And so that was one clear moment. And I think Harris’s answer on Gaza will have been watched very closely. And as Rana was saying on the economics, she’s trying to thread the needle. So she said, yes, I support Israel, but they are killing too many innocent people, too many civilians, which is not that different from what Biden said. However, the next bit she said is interestingly open to interpretation. She said, I’ll always defend Israel, particularly when it comes to attacks from Iran. And now you might read a sort of dot-dot-dot in there, which is one of the big questions is, is America going to keep supplying Israel with weaponry of the sort that it’s using in Gaza that is leading to a lot of civilian deaths, particularly heavy bombs? At times I think Biden did briefly suspend those, but obviously the Israelis are not short of that kind of really destructive stuff that they’re using in Gaza. Now that is a big question, you know, and I think Harris is deliberately not being explicit about it. But I think that if she came in, she might be a bit more tough on Israel, particularly on the kinds of actions they take in Gaza and trying to move beyond just simply saying, oh this makes us uncomfortable to actually putting some pressure on. But in terms of the electorate, the second part of your question. I think, yeah, most people don’t care, but this is a very close election. And so there are important constituencies that do care. And for example, Arab-Americans in Michigan, which is, you know, a swing state, and also young voters, many of whom, you know, have been demonstrating about Gaza. So what Harris is trying to do there is, say, she’s hoping to give them that kind of signal. I’m a bit tougher than Biden is going to be. I’m going to care more about the Palestinian issue than the Biden administration does. But equally, you know, having spoken to her people about that, and this is really, I’m afraid, just pure electoral tactics, they’re conscious that if they go too far in that direction, they risk sort of playing into the ala-Harris is a leftist radical. She’s like the people who are demonstrating on campuses, and that would alienate Middle American voters. So she’s, you know, trying to send a bunch of signals and it maybe maybe the noise coming out is a bit indistinct as a result. And I think the other group of voters that you saw actually making a pitch to after the debate are Ukrainian Americans or Polish Americans. And she said, you know, I hope the people in Pennsylvania with origins in Ukraine and Poland heard what Trump said or didn’t say in that debate, because, again, Pennsylvania, as we all know, the key state. If she can get some of those people saying, you know what, I don’t like that, that could be helpful to her.
Peter Spiegel
Rana, can I ask you to respond to that? Because, you know, you and I both have college age kids. So we’ve seen what’s been happening on college campuses (Yeah). But, you know, you are from Indiana, and Gideon is right. I mean, the big Midwestern states traditionally have been central to Eastern European Catholic voters. And that’s been the swing vote, right? Those are the voters who in the ‘60s and ‘70s were voting Democrat for Lyndon Johnson and with the (inaudible) Reagan Republicans in the ‘80s. And it is in many ways the forgotten voter, particularly in places like Pennsylvania, in Wisconsin and Michigan, that are, you know, have been traditionally that that swing vote. Talk about those two constituencies and how you think policy will play into that, into that (inaudible).
Rana Faroohar
It’s a great question. I think Gideon laid out the landscape really well. Well, I’ll say, as the mother of a daughter that actually showed up and protested at the DNC (laughter), you know, she was out there with the frankly smaller-than-expected group of folks that were protesting the administration’s position with Israel and how we dealt with Gaza. We expected that there was going to be a lot more. But I think the fact that Harris came in and even though, yes, she’s trying to walk a fine line, I think you can just read in her body language and in her voice and in the fact that she took a very early stand saying we need a ceasefire in Gaza, we need to fix this situation. Those younger people believe in her. I think in a way that is just different than how they felt about Biden. And they are galvanized. I see them, I see them all around, actually, because I spend a lot of time on college campuses. I just see a tremendous amount of energy amongst those younger voters. Now, the question is, are they going to get out and vote, right? That’s the thing. Younger voters are just less likely to go to the polls. I do think and then I’ll turn to your question about the kind of older, more traditional Midwestern white male voter. I do think the abortion issue is going to get a lot of young women out. I think that Harris did a great job actually in the debate at sketching again, in very visceral, very emotional terms. What are you doing? You are making young women working two or three jobs have to cross state lines to get an abortion. This is egregious. I mean, you could just feel that sense of horror and anger. And I think that is felt and shared by many young women. Even I have been hearing some Catholic evangelical women, that are kind of concerned about their daughters, are starting to say, wait a minute, is this the guy I want to vote for? Point number one. Point number two, the older Catholic, white male, Midwestern voter. Couple of things happening there. Biden went a long way, as we know, towards recapturing that voter because he came in and first of all, he looked like them. He talked like them. To the extent that these are union members that still have good union jobs in these swing states. He was 100% behind them walking the picket line. He’s Scranton Joe. That’s the issue that I think Kamala, if she has a chink in her armor, that’s where it is. Because look at the very first thing she took on during the debate. She she brought up I mean, I was kind of amazed un-, unprompted in some ways by the moderators. She brought up the Trump wealth tax, sorry, the Trump, with the Trump income tax, which is essentially his tariff plan. Right? And she was, she was pivoting and saying, look, your tariffs are a tax on the consumer in America. That idea plays very well in, in our readership and in the circles that, you know, think about complicated policy issues when it comes to tariffs. But to the guy in Indiana who’s working a union job, that sounds very different. That sounds like I don’t have your back. I might go back to the 1990s on China policy. That’s how it’s reading. And as marketers know, it’s not what you say, it’s what people hear. And so that is going to be one of the trickiest issues, I think, for her going forward.
Peter Spiegel
Lauren, can I ask you to respond to something Rana just said, particular about young voters? I remember very distinctly, I was out in Washington just before Biden withdrew, and you and I met with senior senior person in the Biden campaign. And we were kind of pushing them on the inflation issue in particular. And they said, look, inflation, the people getting hit the most on inflation is housing and the people going to get housing are young people and young people don’t vote. And I was like, gosh, is that what you’re counting on? And, and this person we talked to had worked on Obama and said even in 2008, when rock star Barack Obama had galvanized the youth vote, we couldn’t get kids to wake up in their dorms and get to the vote. And I wonder if you could address that issue, the run a race. But I want to put this. It does sound facetious, but I do actually think is a serious point. To what extent Taylor Swift may counteract that, because people, you know, they don’t need that voting bloc. They don’t need young women because they, they’ve got that, that voting bloc. But what they need them to do is show up and frankly, the Swifties will do whatever she says. Could I just ask you talk a bit about that youth vote, because it frequently is the dog that doesn’t bark, right? It didn’t really bark for Obama in 2008 and they should be a Democrat constituency. And the Democrats always have problems with turnout because it’s not just young people. It tends to be poor people. It tends to be constituencies that have other things on their mind on Election Day than showing up. And I just curious if you have any thoughts on what Ron posited on on a, on a newly galvanized youth vote that will show up because it’s Harris as opposed to Biden?
Lauren Fedor
Yeah. I mean, I think there are, there are several things to unpack there and maybe make sure I get all of them. Yes, it is an obvious, in some ways point the data backs it up that young people are less likely to vote and older people (???). The same is true in the UK, across western Europe. Young people just aren’t as engaged in the process, right? It is also, I think, worth pointing out that while there has been a lot of conversation about foreign policy in the Middle East in particular, and we’ve seen young people on college campuses protesting. Now a lot of the Democrats will say to you that they recognize that as an electoral vulnerability. Excuse me. I’m concerned, but there aren’t that many young voters for whom that’s actually their number one issue. Young people share some things with older people, too, and they’re concerned about the cost of living. They’re concerned about housing costs. I thought it was very interesting, actually, that one of the first economic policies or the package really of economic policies that Kamala Harris rolled out seemed to me to be targeted at a kind of 20- and 30-something electorate. It was about buying your first home. It was about affording childcare. Pensioners, boomers, they are not worried about paying for daycare, right? That’s like a 30-something issue. And so I thought that that was like a giveaway to younger voters. And I think there is, that’s just one example on the kind of policy side. Now, when it comes to whether or not they’re galvanized, I don’t spend quite as much time on college campuses as Rana again (laughter). But I, I, I think they are. And, you know, we see this in, in pop culture, right? I mean, there was the kind of brat summer moment. And at the DNC, there were a lot of red buttons and hats and other paraphernalia. I don’t know if you’ve got any Peter. But there has been this kind of like social media flurry and excitement among 20-somethings in particular, people who, remember, in many cases never voted before. And, you know, now it’s just on the Democratic Party to translate that enthusiasm into actual votes without taking Taylor Swift too, too seriously. I mean, she is the biggest pop star in the world. That was big news even for the FT that she chose to make that endorsement. And she did. I think the most kinda consequential line in her long Instagram post was where she was encouraging people to register and kind of providing links and information on how to do that, because that’s really where the kind of rubber meets the road here.
Rana Faroohar
Can I just amplify one thing? Lauren, I don’t know if you watched the MTV Video Music Awards last night, but that’s a very youth-centric kind of pop culture event in the US. At every single break, “vote, register, here’s how you do it”. It was very interesting. I mean, politics was the sub-theme running through the entire thing.
Lauren Fedor
Yeah, granted, that does turn off some people, too. There are young conservatives in this country and, you know, they’re not going to vote for Harris just because, you know, whoever. I didn’t watch the VMAs, but just because moms (inaudible) whoever else tells them to. But, but I do think that kind of registration piece I was looking at, there are some kind of Democratic strategists who track registration. And one of them was tracking a bump after debate night. Now, how he, he can separate out what’s the debate, what’s Taylor Swift, you know, might get muddled in the data. But there could be a real bump there.
Peter Spiegel
Lauren, let me come back to you. One more question from the audience before I go back to Gideon, which is something you and I have talked about, and it looks forward to the next debate, which is the vice-presidential debate. And this is from Cindy Ayer, who says, Why is it so hard for Harris in Pennsylvania? Shouldn’t Josh Shapiro be winning the state for her? Which raises an interesting question that, frankly, Lauren and I have talked about, a lot about off line, which is the selection of Walz over Shapiro. And actually, Rana, you and I had an exchange on this in Swamp Notes as well. I, to be honest with you, looked at the vice-presidential debate through pretty tactical lenses and said the only thing that vice-president really brings to the ticket is to win the home state. And if that’s the only thinking they can bring, they should have gone with Shapiro because they need Pennsylvania. She obviously didn’t gel with him very well and went with Walz. And as Rana, as you’ve written, he has brought a, a sort of esprit de corps, for lack of better word, to the campaign, that that really is a yin and yang to, to what Harris brings. But Lauren, talk a bit about Pennsylvania, cause you’ve traveled a lot in Pennsylvania, in Pittsburgh most recently, you’ve done the Philadelphia suburbs. This is a state that has a, used to have an overwhelmingly Democratic registration advantage. It was a safe state on, on, for the Democrats, both in the Senate and the House. It is now the new Florida. It is now the swingest swing state. Why is it Democrats and Harris in particular are still struggling to pull away in Pennsylvania?
Lauren Fedor
Well, I think one of the reasons why Pennsylvania is so fascinating and important and interesting for someone like me to be spending time there is that it is a microcosm of the United States. At the end of the day, you have all of the demographics and factions kind of represented there. So there’s the kind of, you know, perhaps an appealing analogy that is attributed to James Carville about you have Pittsburgh and Philadelphia on the sides and you have Alabama in the middle. But you do have big urban centers. You have suburban sprawl in case of Philly suburbs, in particular highly educated suburban areas that once upon a time were Republican and have now comfortably trended Democrat. You have these rural areas in the middle. You have reliance on natural resources. You know, fracking is a big issue in Pennsylvania. So Pennsylvania, you managed to pack it all in into one state and you’re able to really dig into all of these different groups. And I think it is a state that when elections are won on the margins of tens of thousands of votes, any one of those segments of the electorate could prove decisive, right? It’s obviously also or maybe obviously to us and to many of your readers, but is the biggest swing. State. So there’s the most on the line in terms of just pure Electoral College votes. Shapiro is a very popular governor, and I’ve actually just been doing some reporting without previewing too much of a story I haven’t actually filed to you yet. But much earlier in the summer, before the change at the top of the ticket, I wrote a piece about Pennsylvania voters who voted for Nikki Haley in the primary there, even after Haley was no longer on the ticket. So these were the double haters who didn’t, didn’t like either of their options. And I’ve been returning to some of the people I spoke to for that piece and asking if they’ve kind of changed their views. And it’s interesting, you get answers all over the map. But I’ve had several of those voters say to me, well, you know, if Harris had picked Shapiro as the running mate, I think I would have given her some.
Peter Spiegel
Interesting.
Lauren Fedor
No. Anecdote is not the plural of data, but I have found that interesting. Equally, I think sometimes we might over-egg the Shapiro appeal. Look, he won comfortably in his governor’s race, but he won comfortably against someone named Doug Mastriano, who was like more MAGA than Donald Trump himself and turned off a lot of the electorate. So that was not expected to be a close race in a way that this, this will be. And I do find it interesting. The other major example is John Fetterman, which we can all kind of erase recent history, but that race looked really close and there were a lot of people who thought he wasn’t going to win. And he ended up winning by a couple of points, which in Pennsylvania is like a major victory. But the Democrats are not resting on their laurels really, because, you know, it’s a turnout game. It’s a game of margins. And they need every person on their side to turn out, you know.
Rana Faroohar
I’m curious, just, just before you move on. Who’s going to write the book about what happened in Pennsylvania post game? Because, Peter, to your point, I mean, yes, it’s the job of the VP to win the home state, but this is not a usual election. And Harris is not a usual candidate. And she needed to, gosh, I think she needed the guy that was going to look and feel like, you know, the white dude, I mean, white dudes for Harris is now a thing on social media and that is Walz, I think.
Peter Spiegel
Rana, for her once again accusing me of living in the 1990s which is 100% true. Gideon, I wonder if you could take a zoom out approach because one of the interesting things from, for the FT in particular, because we do cover politics globally, is to put the US in a global context. And what has been interesting to watch since I spent quite a bit of time in Europe as a, as a correspondent, is the old traditional party, for lack of a better word, have had a bit of a run of late. You know, obviously the UK, your Starmer is a sort of a Blairite almost to a certain extent, centrist Labour candidate who’s now the prime minister there. We saw Macron, I guess I would say, survive. You may disagree with me. What we thought was going to be a huge, overwhelming vote for Le Pen in the far right. You know, even in places like India where, where Modi had, had reigned supreme. His election didn’t go very well for him. You know, you get a populist prime minister in India. Erdogan has seen his popularity wither. I wonder if I’m reading too much into this and whether there is anything to be read in from global trends to the US election and whether that spells a problem for Trump, given that it does feel like the fever in some ways is breaking internationally and whether there’s a whether to read into the US election in that regard.
Gideon Rachman
Well, it’s funny you should say that, Peter, because, you know, one of the — we don’t talk about future columns we’re going to write. So one of the things I was thinking was maybe I should write to, you know, particularly if Paris wins, you know, the idea that liberalism is great to come back, that, as you say, Modi did less well than expected, Erdogan did less well than expected. You know, you can always argue it both ways, I’m afraid, because I’m not becoming a bit skeptical of big tipping points that will sort of end populism, because why am I, I’m going next week to Germany and in Germany the far right MP just made a big breakthrough, the probably the biggest they’ve ever made. Okay. They only you know, because it’s proportional representation system. It’s slightly different how it works. But they’ve just won one big state election in the (inaudible) year that came second, very close second in Saxony. They may win another in Brandenburg. And so this, they are the sort of Trumpists of Germany and they’re the rising force. They’re only at about 30%, even in their strong areas. But nonetheless, that kind of overturning German politics and their issues are quite Trump like. They are anti-immigrant, much more skeptical of the Ukraine war. They look to, they’re probably the only forces in Europe that look to Trump. And it’s easy to say, well, all Europeans think Trump is crazy, and how can any Americans vote for him then? But actually there are constituencies in Europe that would be more aligned to Trump.
Peter Spiegel
What if one of them got one and they got their name mentioned at the debate? Viktor Orban.
Rana Faroohar
Yeah, yeah, unbelievable.
Gideon Rachman
I mean, I think that was, that was, you know, for the communist country, a slightly chilling moment because Viktor Orban is accused by the rest of the EU. You would have followed the rule of law procedures of actually deliberately undermining democracy in Hungary. And I thought it matched quite, it was an interesting counterpoint to Trump’s disavowal of Project 2025 when he said, I never heard of it, never read it. Well, Project 2025 is an openness project, you know, and it praises Hungary as a sort of model. So Trump ain’t so innocent on what all this means. You know, if he thinks Viktor Orban is a great thing, I think it would be for reasons to do with the kinds of ideas endorsed in Project 2025. Well they would see it as the dismantling of the Deep state, you know, getting, saying that our state has been taken over by liberalism, which is entrenched in the bureaucracies and in the media, and that we need to remake our institutions by sacking a lot of people and putting loyalists in. And that’s the only way of doing it. That was the Obama playbook. And so it’s also the Project 2025 playbook. So I think Trump may have more interest in it than he’s letting on.
[Everyone talking at the same time]
Rana Faroohar
Go ahead, Lauren
Lauren Fedor
Just on the Orban point, because I definitely think that raised a lot of eyebrows here. I know from contacts overseas, you know, people were asking me about it after the debate. And as someone who spends more than her fair amount of time on the campaign trail at Trump events, he mentions Viktor Orban on the stump all the time. And so it was not actually that surprising for me because I heard him say it in some pretty odd venues, too, where he brings it up. I was at his event in DC earlier this (inaudible) with The Moms for Liberty, which is a very kind of like school choice, right-wing group. And he’s going on about Viktor Orban on the stage there. He talks about him all the time. He’s occupying a lot of headspace, I think, for the former president.
Peter Spiegel
Yeah. Well, Gideon, I want you to write that column. The other one, obviously, to mention is Donald (inaudible) in Poland to, to, to . . .
Gideon Rachman
Yeah. No, absolutely. I think one of the interesting things about international politics is how so many issues are on hold while everybody waits to see who’s going to win the American election. So, you know, Netanyahu is waiting to see what happens. Putin is waiting to see what happens. Orban is waiting to see what happens because their futures are very closely tied to what happens on the other side of the Atlantic.
Peter Spiegel
Rana, let me come to you on, on your area of your expertise, which is political economy. And, and there’s a question I have from (inaudible), but I’m going to change it slightly for my own proclivities. From David Blitzer. Blitzer is a, is a reader who says some reports say that people agree with Trump that the US economy is in terrible shape. How can Harris convince them that the US economy is good, (inaudible) growth, inflation, unemployment are very low? Let me take that question and ask you in a slightly different way, which is I think, I think it’s fair to say during the debate, her first ten, 15 minutes on the economy was her weakest. I think both of us were writing about that. She has a hard time articulating this because she is wedded to Bidenomics, which I know is objectively, as you just said, good for the American economy. But it was at least early on inflationary. And every poll we have done and Lauren and I work on this every month with the FT (inaudible) poll shows that inflation is still to this day, even though inflation is coming down, the most important issue facing voters, and particularly the swing voters. We keep talking about working class voters in swing states. And inflation, even though it’s down what was yesterday, 2.4%? It’s not. (Inaudible) Prices are still high and it’s really a tough one for the Democrats to, to play into. And again, going back to the meeting that Lauren had in Washington with the Biden people, their argument was we got to change the subject. (Yeah) It’s a loser for us. (Yeah.) Talk a bit about that. But why? You know, in an FT perspective for FT readers, you look at the economic data and it’s, it’s, you know, the envy of the world. It genuinely is (yeah) soft landings happening. And yet the American people are so grouchy about it and they’re punishing Biden and by extension. Harris because of it.
Rana Faroohar
Yeah, so much to say here. So let’s start by just looking at this question that we all have. We look at the economic data. People essentially who have, you know are middle class, upper middle class, have income and asset wealth. We’re looking at that and saying, hey, things are looking pretty good. Gosh, we’re having the best recovery in the rich world. But if you are a working person, you have to imagine that that working single mom in Indiana or that guy who was put out of a union job in Pennsylvania and is, you know, is just making ends meet, think about them like an emerging market person. They’re a person where 30 to 40 to maybe 50% of their income is going for things like food, fuel, rent, sometimes more because of the housing and rental crisis in America is really profound and we should maybe come back to that issue. So they are just in a different economic orbit. And that’s the problem that Harris has, because if she says what is true, which is that we have engineered I mean, like it or not, this White House and the Fed together engineered what is kind of an amazingly soft landing in the face of so many headwinds. We could have been in a terrible place right now. But if you say that the person in Pennsylvania and Indiana and Michigan and Wisconsin hears that as you have no idea of my pain, you have no idea what it’s like for me when I walk into the grocery store and, or, God forbid, a restaurant, which frankly, even I’m feeling that and look at how prices have gone up. So it’s a tough, it’s a tough thing. The facts and the felt experience. By the way, it’s also very interesting. You and I have written about this in Swamp Notes, Peter, that since the 1990s, economic data itself has been seen in a much more partisan light. So people are looking at the same basket of facts and simply seeing them differently depending on where they sit. I think I’m going to go back to that point. I think the big error that Harris made in the debate and that she’s going to have to rethink in the next few weeks until November, is that taking on the issue of tariffs and inflation and consumer prices and putting them in the same basket, that is a no win for her. She needs to be talking about choke points, whether they’re coming from China or whether they’re coming from Silicon Valley or whether they’re coming from Big Pharma. We’re looking to get rid of choke points. Those are the things that are in your way because that’s something that working people can relate to. They don’t want to pay higher drug prices. They’re looking at you know, they’re not identified with Google. They look at China and think, gosh, they’re going to take my job. And there is there is a point, there is a legitimate point to make about a resiliency economy that is about driving down prices by looking at choke points, by looking at competition and by seeing trade, not in the Trumpian way, but through a new lens in which we need to be thinking about domestic economic interests as well as, as foreign affairs. That’s where she needs to be. Now, think about how long it just took me to say that. It’s not an easy thing to message, right.? And the language. . .
Peter Spiegel
With only two months left to go, right? And that’s it. You’ve touched on exactly what I am concerned about when it comes to thinking about how Harris talks about the economy is there is no overarching structure that she has. She’s got some bumper sticker things about a, you know, middle-class economy, stuff like that. But unlike, again, living in the ‘90s, you know, Bill Clinton when he ran for president, had a you know, there are two things in America that are you can’t move infrastructure and your labor force. And I’m going to invest in those two things. And that’s how I’m going to build up. And there was a there was a theme. Everything was economic policy. And so she’s pulling together pieces that other than a couple bumper stickers don’t seem to. . .
Rana Faroohar
Well, I have written, I’ve written a piece, I’ve written . . . The two pieces I’ve written about Harris kind of touch on this. But my first piece was I thought she should come out very clearly, maybe not using the word Bidenomics, but saying we are in an entirely new economy. We have left the ‘90s behind. We have left laissez faire globalization, neoliberalism behind because people need to hear that she’s not going back to the normal democratic status quo that frankly lost Democrats the vote under Hillary Clinton. She has to come out and do something differently. She’s not a market shaper, though. I mean, she’s somebody that cares. She cares about a lot of great things. She cares about social justice. She cares about the Supreme Court. She cares about democracy. But she’s not like Biden. Biden was sitting around in a spare time, you know, reading markets about, not reading white papers about non-compete clauses. You know, I mean, this is not what Kamala Harris is doing. She doesn’t have a systems view of the economy. And so she keeps walking into kind of own goals. Think about the price, the price fixing, price gouging stuff that she came out with on grocery stores. That’s actually a problem that’s starting to go away. But more importantly, it’s not a problem about Kroger. It’s a problem about the largest commodities traders and the fact that so much power still exists in the shadow banking sector, which is unregulated. That’s something you have to be deep into a large economic worldview to understand. And whether it’s neoliberal or post neoliberal, she ain’t there yet.
Peter Spiegel
Well, if you want to hear Rana and I disagree about what the policy options for the U.S. economy are. Subscribe to Clap Notes (laughter) cause we talk about this all the time. But let me, let me, let me turn back to you, Lauren. We’re talking a lot about Harris. And I want to just make sure we spend some time on the Trump campaign and what is what is evident to me. And please disagree if you, if you, if you want. We were in Milwaukee and I was just struck at how un-Trumpian it was. I mean, obviously there was the MAGA themes. There was the MAGA hat. It’s outside the arena advocates. But it was disciplined. There was message discipline. Everyone, whether it was a big tent or small tent, everyone was in the tent. What is seems to have happened in the last certainly the last 48 hours, but even before that, is that discipline seems to have gone away. And certainly I think that’s the, the sideswipe that is Kamala Harris took them all by surprise. And, and it was a pretty well run thing. Trump was looking to his advisors and then suddenly you got Lewandowski showing up, Laura Loomer showing up. Talk to me a bit about where you think the state of play is for for the Trump campaign right now, but then a little bit forward looking. If you had any advice, advice, you’re a reporter, you don’t give advice but where you think the, the Trump can maybe regain his footing in the next in the next 54, 55 days?
Lauren Fedor
Well, first of all, I don’t know. Gideon was also Milwaukee and I’m not sure. Kid Rock. Hulk Hogan and also Pretty MAGA to me, Peter.
Peter Spiegel
It was MAGA, but it was disciplined MAGA as you know. It was. It was not the usual. Well, all right. Maybe I’m exaggerating. It was. It was a it was. What’s that?
Gideon Rachman
Tucker Carlson. Not to speak of slop, you know, I suppose it’s what you’re . . .
Rana Faroohar
Now that’s disciplione. Gosh!
Gideon Rachman
What you’re used to, Peter. I mean, I guess, you know, by the standards of how crazy it could have been. Yes, it wasn’t that crazy. But if, like me, you. You know, the first time you confronted it is quite odd that the warm-up act for this would-be president’s Hulk Hogan. You know, and and so on.
Peter Spiegel
I mean, I, I read the Tea Party cover covers. There was no equivalent there. (unclear)
Lauren Fedor
No, no, no. No wrestlers (unclear)
Peter Spiegel
But but, Lauren it all seriousness. Maybe I’m exaggerating (No,no no). Sort of there is suddenly it feels to me a battle with, for the soul of the Trump campaign that existed four years ago, which is the campaign professionals who want him to say discipline, stay on the issues, you know. Stay on harris is flip-flop, which he has flip-flopped on things like fracking and, and other things. And those who want that Trump be Trump and Laura Loomer. Again, those who don’t know her, she is a far-right provocateur. She denies that 9/11 happened from, from, she thinks it was a false flag operation and went to Trump to 9/11 ceremony yesterday. Suddenly these people are in, inside his inner circle. Talk to me a bit about where the Trump campaign is and whether they could get back on track.
Lauren Fedor
Yes, I’m sorry to divert with anecdotes, but I, I completely agree with your point that the narrative, (inaudible) the first six months of the year and, you know, I saw this on the ground covering the primaries because believe it or not, there was a time where we weren’t quite certain it was a done deal, that Trump was going to be the candidate. And so you saw it in Iowa. You saw in New Hampshire, the Trump campaign of 2024 has been very disciplined and there’s been a lot of credit paid to Kristen Sabina and Siouxsie Wiles were really the architects of this campaign. They got discipline from their candidate. The messaging was sharp and it was relentless. And they dominated the, the kind of news cycle in a way that was very, very effective. Now, I think it’s important. You know, we’re talking about the convention. I spent a lot of time thinking about this. Now, it’s hard to kind of wrap your head around just how many events we had in such a short period of time. But Trump was nearly killed less than a week before that convention. And I think that when the history books are reflecting on this period of time, that will be a really important inflection point, I think, for his campaign, for the election season. More broadly, I think you saw a change in his tone in the very, very short term. There was about a 48-hour period of if we’re all going to be . . .
Peter Spiegel
Lauren, I’ll push you on that, where do you think that where do you think the change happened? It went from disciplined Trump to less disciplined Trump or?
Lauren Fedor
I think so. I think on a certain level, you know, look, if you ask people close to him, how do you think it affected him? You don’t. There are people clearly still grappling with it. They’re still kind of chewing it over in their head. But I think for all of the imagery of the fight, fight, fight, which has become the rallying cry for his campaign, for his kind of campaign and the kind of devoted base, they show up screaming mad at the at the rallies. Now, that is their, that is their anthem. But I think it clearly rattled him and the people around him and perhaps change the way they were thinking about things. And I don’t know, just as an observer, I found it very interesting that you had this brief period after that. We’re all going to come together. We’re all going to unite. This is really the moment where we’re going to get behind him and unite the country. And then, you know, okay, then a week after the convention, you have Biden stepping aside, you have Harris coming in. He clearly didn’t want to run against Harris. And then the wheels kind of came off. There are in many ways, it’s probably obvious there are a lot of people around President Trump who want him to be more disciplined. We wrote about it in front of the FT today, had our story with original reporting about just how many people in his orbit, donors, advisers, strategists woke up on Wednesday morning thinking, why is he doing this to himself? Can’t we just stay on message? So there is, there is a fair amount of concern among his, his supporters and the people in his inner circle. What I think will be very interesting to see is how that plays out over the next couple of weeks and how that might affect down ballot races. So I was having a conversation with someone yesterday who’s a not quoted in our piece, to be clear, but a kind of influential donor who gives a lot of money to a lot of Republicans. And he was saying to me that he’s starting to get nervous about some of these Senate races and the House races, and if the Republicans further down the ballot start getting antsy that Trump, by associating with Laura Loomer or doing whatever else he’s doing, is trying to hurt them, you could see a lot of fracturing, I think, in . . .
Peter Spiegel
If the main takeaways debate is … the main takeaway of the debate was they’re eating pets? Gideon, you want to jump in here and then Rana. . .
Gideon Rachman
Couple of points. I mean, one of the things that, that really, again, as a sort of somebody dips in and out of American politics that struck me as extraordinary is how much the conspiracy world and Trump world have merged in a way that would have seemed unthinkable a long time ago. I mean, I was looking after I mean, so much happens in, in the US. But, you know, a week ago we were all talking about Tucker Carlson interviewing a neo-Nazi. And, and so I looked at so who is, who else has Tucker Carlson interviewed? And if you look at his guest list for the next month, one night is J.D. Vance. And literally the next night is Alex Jones. You know, they they, they, they don’t keep any distance from these people anymore. So it doesn’t surprise me that Laura Loomer was on the plane. You know, Trump really does consult with these people a lot. Question is I don’t know. We like to think in our world that that should matter. That should harm him. But it’s interesting when you say, well, you know, the campaign team are tearing their hair out and everyone wants him to be more disciplined. You know, if I were Trump, which is hard to imagine, admittedly, but part of me would be saying, well, hang on, you know who got me here? It was me, not you. You know, Trump has violated taboos from day one. You know, and how many times have we said, you can’t be that and survive in American politics. From the birther stuff to, you know, the famous Access Hollywood tape, etc., etc.. That’s so many.
Peter Spiegel
Conventions.
Gideon Rachman
Well, what we said. Well, that’s obviously over. And maybe he knows something we don’t about what he can get away with and what plays with his base.
Peter Spiegel
We’ll get in. I’ll just say you will make an excellent demagogue if you ever decide to run. Rana, did you want to pick up on it as well?
Rana Faroohar
Yeah, because Loren flagged the down ballot races and congressional stuff. I just wanted to flag the fact that the Goldman Sachs report that came out recently looking at the economic impact of what would a Trump presidency do for the economy, what would a Harris presidency do? I thought that the best scenario for overall growth would be a Harris presidency and a completely blue Congress. And one of the reasons for that is that you could pass through potentially legislation, pro-immigration legislation. I mean, that’s a topic that we haven’t touched on. That’s huge for the economy. It’s something that is so underplayed. And I thought it was very interesting, actually, just to kind of tie together what Gideon said and what Lauren brought up. Karl Rove tweeted today a video clip about a factory in Chicago or sorry, in Ohio, that is relying on wonderfully hardworking, surprise, surprise, Haitian immigrants to stay open because there are not Americans to fill those jobs. And, you know, this is the reality of the economy in this country right now. You need immigration, it actually to keep things going. We would have much more inflationary choke points in the labor market if it wasn’t for immigration.
Peter Spiegel
It’s an issue point that is Rove, too. I mean, again, dating myself and going back to the ‘90s it was Rove largely as Bush’s political advisor who tried to broaden the tent, right? He thought particularly Latinos in the United States, Mexican-Americans if you looked at that as a constituency tend to be Catholic, tend to be family-oriented, tend to be conservatives, are natural Republican base. And there was a huge amount of outreach to the recent arrivals or the first- or second-generation immigrant community by Rove and by Bush. And they were starting to make inroads. And remember, this is a party that in the 1980s was winning 48 states. And now they’re at you know, they can’t get 50, 40 or 46% of the vote. Before we run out of time, there is a question that I want to get to from Robert McGrath and I’ll actually I’ll ask it slightly differently to each of you. But let me start with Lauren, because it’s the issue of, for lack of better word, democracy. And Robert talks a bit a little bit about, you know, what the business community has sort of talked about importance of a peaceful transition of power. But then many business leaders back Trump anyway. But, Lauren, I want to ask you a slightly different way, which is I think you and I have talked about this, the market change in messaging on this. Biden (inaudible) to Harris because this was the one thing Biden kept hammering that were democracy’s at risk, a democracy is at risk. And Harris stopped talking about it. Talk to me a bit about that tactical change and why you think that that that Biden to Harris did that made that a conscious decision.
Lauren Fedor
To me, it sounds more of a conciliatory tone or a tone that is less attacking people who might be sympathetic to President Trump but may have voted for President Trump in the past. I think earlier in our conversation, Rana brought up that in her speech at the Democratic convention, Harris called Trump an unserious person. And I thought that kind of summarized the tone change that we had is that it’s less about him being a clear and present danger and more about him being just a foolish, embarrassing, unserious person who shouldn’t, who shouldn’t kind of be treated seriously. Obviously, there are people who there will be people who say, look, he was president of United States and it’s a serious matter that he could be president United States again. But it is, it’s definitely interesting. I think it’s notable. I don’t think it’s the kind of thing that people like us are just pouring over the semantics. I think there has been a shift in the overall tone, and that’s about trying to reach those voters in the middle, really, because she does need to try to get some people who voted for President Trump either four or eight years ago.
Rana Faroohar
Can I to jump in on this because I actually think that’s interesting. Well, I agree with what Lauren said about the repositioning, but I think that word choice change was actually very strategic because democracy is a word that, frankly, people of the greatest generation relate to, maybe older people relate to. It is not something that was just galvanizing people overall. Whereas freedom, which is what the word choice that she went with. That’s interesting. In part, it is a kind of a repatriotization of that word to the Democratic side. That’s a word that’s been associated with Republicans. And it gets to this point about freedom, too, or freedom from. So Republicans want freedom to carry a gun, freedom to live without regulations and with low taxes. But Democrats and Joe Stiglitz wrote about this in his most recent book, talk about freedom, or can talk about freedom from freedom from poverty, freedom from financial insecurity, freedom from the, the, the lack of ability to have choices in your life. And that’s something that she’s really embracing. And she’s also in, in grabbing freedom, I think she is re-associating very smartly Democrats with patriotism. Patriotism, and I wrote a Swamp Note about this, I feel very strongly about this point, has become almost something to be ashamed of if you’re living in blue Brooklyn as we are, Peter. You know, I have, there is literally one American flag on my block, and it’s the one Trump voter who the family has owned the house since the neighborhood, you know, has gentrified. And people are like, ooh, they have a flag outside their house. They must be Trump voters. Well, guess what? I like the flag. You know, I grew up in a small town in Indiana. I’ve got two passports. But I think patriotism is a good thing. And in fact, there are leftist arguments that just as you need self-confidence to be a benevolent person, an individual, you need a sense of belief and common purpose in you know, in your country to feel like you’re a productive citizen. And so I think that those are very smart, strategic and potentially even long-term shifts for the Democratic Party.
Peter Spiegel
Well, I want to get back to you. Let me just let me just pull Gideon in really quickly, because I want to ask the question a slightly different way, which is, you know, you are across, again the erosion of democratic norms globally. And again, we talked about some of the places that’s happening, you know, Hungary, India, Turkey. To what extent do you think it is under threat in the US? Because we go back and forth on this. I mean, I wrote something very shortly after the assassination attempt where I said, you know, it is not just Trump who is overheated rhetoric on this. Biden going out there and saying every day that if this guy is elected, America is going to collapse. Well, you know what? He was president United States four years ago. He as president tried to overthrow the election. You know what happened? Well, January 6th happened. But, you know, two weeks later, Biden was sworn in. The country went on. And I just wonder whether there is a genuine threat to democracy or whether this overheated rhetoric is not helping things. But you have a better perspective on this having, having looked at this elsewhere.
Gideon Rachman
I mean I think I think there is a genuine threat to democracy, but I don’t think you would have to be catastrophist about it and say it’s all over if Trump wins. I mean, breaking the question down, I would say, look, there are two, two elements to it that I would be interested in. First of all, is Trump two going to be different from Trump one, you know? You know the argument that he was surrounded by relatively conventional Republicans initially, lost patience with them and is now going to bring in real loyalists who really are not Democrats and who would, you know, institute Project 25, 2025 plus plus, who would do things like attempt mass deportation, use the army to do that, might declare a state of emergency. I don’t think those things are implausible. Not saying that definitely going to happen, but I think it’s quite likely that he might attempt some of that stuff. And some of these people are very angry. You know, you mentioned the convention, Pete Navarro, just out of jail. He wants to vote. We’ve just come out of. . .
Rana Faroohar
(Laughter) Very true.
Peter Spiegel
Crazy moment, yeah.
Gideon Rachman
He wants revenge, you know, So he’s going to be surrounded by angry people with a plan. So I think that’s, that’s quite dangerous. And then I think the second question is, okay, let’s say Trump two is different, more radical, more sort of, of a man with a plan that is anti-democratic. How strong are American institutions? Could he institute that plan? And I take some comfort from the thought that, you know, actually America isn’t Hungary. Hungary is a small country where it’s relatively, with a relatively new democracy without, it was, wasn’t easy to do it that but, but he had a, you know, control of the houses of Congress in Hungary. He could push through constitutional change. There were the checks and balances. In America, it’s a federal system. You know, good luck trying to dismantle American democracy in 10 years. Well, I don’t mean good luck, but you know what I mean. (Yeah)
Peter Spiegel
All it takes is one Secretary of state of Georgia to say no, and they can’t do it. Yeah.
Gideon Rachman
Yeah. You know, there’s pushback from the states. There’s, you know, many different levels of the legal system. There are lots of checks and balances and there are lots of different sources of wealth and power in the United States.
Rana Faroohar
Yeah.
Gideon Rachman
And so I think you could go through a very, very bumpy period where Trump had attempts to do all sorts of awful things. But whether he actually managed, I’m not sure.
Peter Spiegel
Rana, let me finish up with you, because we only about three or four minutes left and I know it’s an issue that you and I disagree on, so I want to end it with that. The second part of Robert’s question was about the business community and why, despite the business community’s worry about the decline in democratic norms, the need for for peaceful transition of power, why is it that the business community has these pre-Harris, putting itself behind Trump? And I know you and I disagree with this. Let me get my (inaudible). I get to preempt you by getting my point across on this one. I do think people underestimate the extent to which Biden is in many ways the most anti-business president we’ve had in a long time. He’s certainly more anti-business than the last two Democratic presidents, Obama and Clinton. And all you need to do is look at, get a copy of the FTC, Gary Gensler, the SEC, his embrace of labor. Now, these may be issues that that many of our readers and listeners think are good things, but if you are a business executive sitting in a suite and you’re seeing the Biden administration do these things, you may not like Trump and you may actually hold your nose, but you hear the White House saying these things about you and you’re, you’re like, it’s kind of hard to vote for that guy. I think that’s why that’s happened. Now, Harris has opened the door because she’s not really, as you touched on, Rana. She has been tacking to the center and also she has a record back at San Francisco, Silicon Valley, where she was relatively open to the tech community and whatnot. Yeah. Talk about that issue because I know you disagree with this on on whether the business community shifting towards Trump is somehow a rational decision or an irrational.
Rana Faroohar
Well, I don’t know how much we disagree. I have several points to make. For starters, you’ve got a different vibe between Scranton Joe and California Harris. I mean, that’s just different, and you can already see it. And it’s a risk for her in some of the Silicon Valley support coming back in. Okay, great. We love that they’re filling the coffers for her. But I don’t love when Reid Hoffman is, you know, and various billionaires are saying, you know, we want you to fire Lina Khan publicly. I mean, you could argue that some, that a donor coming out on television and saying, we want you to do. That’s something that the AGs might might look at. You know, I mean, is that a bribe? Is that what is that? So that’s a risky place for her. And it speaks to the fact that, frankly, we all know this. There is a portion of the business community, not the entirety by any means, that is extremely opportunistic. And, you know, I am forever amazed. I would love to do a, I’ll do a Swamp Note and get reader comments on this. Why is tax optimization more important than preserving liberal democracy? Let’s talk about that. You know, but, but, but I’ll say a final thing, which is that I don’t think that Biden was overall anti-business. I think he was anti-libertarian big business that has no interest in domestic economic concerns. If you go back to his July 2021 executive order, which Tim Wu essentially ghosted and I covered, very few people did. Extremely important. He said, look, the economy cannot just be about serving a handful of big businesses that are that are propping up the S&P. It’s got to be about a larger ecosystem. Businesses of all sizes, small business, mid-sized business, workers as well as consumers. This is about the shift from trickle down Chicago school to something else that is more encompassing. And Harris has a real opportunity to actually bridge that gap because there are plenty of small businesses in California that are worried that Google is going to eat their lunch. So there’s, there’s space there to grow.
Peter Spiegel
On that note, I give you the last word, Rana, which is clearly a failing on my part. I want to thank our readers, first of all, for being our readers. But thank you for joining us at this today. Obviously, you can read Rana, you can read Gideon and you could read Lauren every day at FT.com. Thanks for joining us. And we will see you in November.
[MUSIC PLAYING]
Sonja Hutson
That was a special edition of Swamp Notes, the US politics show from the FT News Briefing. If you want to sign up for the Swamp Notes newsletter, we’ve got a link to that in the show notes. Our show is mixed and produced by Ethan Plotkin. It’s also produced by Lauren Fedor. Special thanks to Pierre Nicholson. I’m Sonja Hutson. Our executive producer is Topher Flores, and Cheryl Bromley is the FT’s global head of audio. Original Music by Hannis Brown. Check back next week for more US political analysis from the Financial Times.
