00:02:14 · Tracy Alloway, Joe Weisenthal
[00:02:14] S1: Yeah. [00:02:15] S0: And it's 938 and the NASDAQ is getting hammered. So what is true, and it was like isolated in the day after like SpaceX and Tesla, which have as companies put a lot of money, both in Texas and red Texas specifically, they got hit pretty hard. Some of these new clouds that have like dreams of expanding their footprint, et cetera, got hit pretty hard. Now it was kind of a mix. I don't know. Anyway, the other thing, by the way, that is relevant of course, is any future. Fed governors in our world. [00:02:47] S1: Yep. [00:02:47] S0: In our world, you know, if there are any Fed governor appointments coming up. Anyway, to talk about all this, very excited to say, welcoming back to the show, perfect guest, because he knows both worlds. Skanda Amarnath, Executive Director of Employ America. Actually, all three worlds, because in addition to knowing macro and politics, You're also sort of a markets junkie, but you don't really talk about that as much publicly. [00:03:08] S1: We'll get you to do equity recommendations. [00:03:11] S0: We'll get Skanda's five lockpicks for Q4. No, but for real, let's stick just with the politics for a second. We're recording this November 5th, so we all know what happened. But are there any dimensions of the earthquake tidal wave extinction level event for the GOP that stand out for you in some way? I mean, I think people were missing.
00:03:11 · Joe Weisenthal, Skanda Amarnath, Tracy Alloway
[00:03:11] S0: We'll get Skanda's five lockpicks for Q4. No, but for real, let's stick just with the politics for a second. We're recording this November 5th, so we all know what happened. But are there any dimensions of the earthquake tidal wave extinction level event for the GOP that stand out for you in some way? I mean, I think people were missing. [00:03:36] S2: Yeah, I think that the Senate itself, this is more structural, just really matters for the American government. It is sort of the institution that shapes who serves on the Supreme Court. It's the institution that shapes who serves on the Fed board. And for a long time, there's been a pretty structural advantage for the GOP. [00:03:52] S0: In the Senate. [00:03:53] S1: Yes. [00:03:54] S2: And maybe that advantage is still true and this blue tsunami will be a one-off. But I think you at least see for Democrats, there is a path ahead for how they could sustainably Stay competitive in the Senate. That's not reaching to get to 50 to 51 votes. I think that can change a lot of different things. [00:04:11] S0: And the structural advantage for the GOP and the Senate comes down to the fact that if you take a state like Kansas or Iowa or whatever, they haven't seen a lot of population growth. Their share of like is outside. But they still get two votes, just like New York. And if there's ever a time when there's down to like 100 people left in Wyoming, they're probably the assumption is going to be Republicans. And they're going to have infinitely more influence over the rest of the country than New York.
00:04:11 · Joe Weisenthal, Skanda Amarnath, Tracy Alloway
[00:04:11] S0: And the structural advantage for the GOP and the Senate comes down to the fact that if you take a state like Kansas or Iowa or whatever, they haven't seen a lot of population growth. Their share of like is outside. But they still get two votes, just like New York. And if there's ever a time when there's down to like 100 people left in Wyoming, they're probably the assumption is going to be Republicans. And they're going to have infinitely more influence over the rest of the country than New York. [00:04:40] S2: The Senate is about the number of states, not the number of people. [00:04:43] S1: And Corrin doesn't vote, as they say. [00:04:45] S2: Except in the Midwest. I would say what Bob Dole had some quote about basically. way more ag states than there are any other kind of state. And that's going to always count more. I think that has some implications for sort of how kind of power is shaped from here. For Democrats, there's also just a sense of, oh, this was actually possible. I don't think Democrats expected to win in South Carolina unless they were in the Annie Andrews campaign, maybe. I don't think they expected to win in Mississippi. And it looks like at least that's going to be coming really down to the wire. So it just shows that there's different possibilities, which will also kind of shape how they govern, what kind of map they want to optimize towards in subsequent elections, which may just change the agenda to some degree.
00:04:45 · Skanda Amarnath, Tracy Alloway
[00:04:45] S2: Except in the Midwest. I would say what Bob Dole had some quote about basically. way more ag states than there are any other kind of state. And that's going to always count more. I think that has some implications for sort of how kind of power is shaped from here. For Democrats, there's also just a sense of, oh, this was actually possible. I don't think Democrats expected to win in South Carolina unless they were in the Annie Andrews campaign, maybe. I don't think they expected to win in Mississippi. And it looks like at least that's going to be coming really down to the wire. So it just shows that there's different possibilities, which will also kind of shape how they govern, what kind of map they want to optimize towards in subsequent elections, which may just change the agenda to some degree. [00:05:26] S1: Okay. So the Senate is important, but I think the consensus assumption is still there's going to be some form of political gridlock because, for instance, the Democrats don't have the 60 votes they need to push through a Republican filibuster and stuff like that. On the other hand, I think if we learned anything from Tuesday's elections, it's that Trump seems to be politically toxic now on both the Republican and the Democratic side. So maybe there's a potential to come together on like a few.
00:05:54 · Skanda Amarnath, Tracy Alloway
[00:05:54] S2: Issues at least. Yes, it's not. In general, divided government tends to be gridlock, right? So I think it means it's harder to pass policy. It becomes harder to pass policy in a crisis. So if you think about it, like we're talking about this in 2018, right? We were talking about, OK, there was the midterms effect, but Trump was kind of going forward with his kind of trade war, trade conflict issues. Fast forward 18 months later, and you have sort of the CARES Act issues from COVID. It just required a lot of coordination. Kind of worked out then in terms of at least Congress passed a lot of different things. I'm not sure how it's going to play out this time, right? Because it does seem like there's clearly, I said, the president's quite toxic. How polarizes it? Are Republicans willing to peel off? One thing that stood out from this election cycle was you could point to two very tangible things where Policy really did matter, right? You could say tariffs clearly identifiably moved prices and the war clearly had an effect. How that does, do any Republicans actually change their sort of approach to the president? I suspect that it's hard in the context of war to change a sort of executive action. Tariffs are more interesting because you're talking, we're talking about ag states. They're probably the ones who really like really holding the bag in terms of the cost of tariffs and sort of how they were executed by the president. [00:07:11] S1: But tariffs are being pushed through now purely by executive order. So how much power does anyone else have to change them?
00:07:11 · Tracy Alloway, Skanda Amarnath, Joe Weisenthal
[00:07:11] S1: But tariffs are being pushed through now purely by executive order. So how much power does anyone else have to change them? [00:07:17] S2: And the question is, are there Republicans in the ag states? There's still plenty of them, right? And I'm talking about the middle of the country, west of the Mississippi, who clearly, I mean, I don't think John Thune really likes aggressive tariffs. It has a lot of costs for farmers and for the ag industry. Are you able to peel off some of those to actually work on restricting sort of how much power the executive branch has over trade policy? These are all, again, they're all quite reaches because it's going to require pulling off an additional set of Republicans to work with Democrats and work against the president. That's, again, I'd say more tail scenario considerations. I'm sure Democrats will be happy to run on the idea that the president is raising costs through tariffs. But, I mean, if you think about where policy can change, it would require quite a substantial amount of coordination with other Republicans in the Senate. [00:08:06] S0: Just from a numbers thing, I mean... I was in a chat with you on Tuesday night and you're like, this is historic. Like what was the early on thing? You're like, oh, this is like, we're actually talking about a history making election.