In Conversation with Chris Krueger – What to Watch for Ahead of the U.S. Election

CHRIS KRUEGER: This is shaping up to be an election that probably is going to be decided by the so-called double haters. It's the largest unpopularity contest in American history.

PETER HAYNES: Welcome to episode 50 of Geopolitics with the honorable Frank McKenna. My name is Peter Haynes at TD Securities, and I get the pleasure to host this monthly podcast series where we travel around the world to cover the most important global geopolitical issues of the day, all from our perch here in Canada. Frank, I hope you're keeping well. And I got to ask you, before we bring in our guests this month, did you ever think we'd make it to 50? Can you believe that?

FRANK MCKENNA: I never thought we'd make it to five. So every day is a revelation, every day we do this, and I enjoy very much, Peter.

PETER HAYNES: Yeah, I do too, and I know our listeners do. And the listener list is growing leaps and bounds. So today, I'm very pleased and please join me, Frank, in welcoming back to the podcast our friend and colleague Chris Krueger from TD Cowen's Washington Research Group. Chris is going to help guide us through the next eight months to November 5, which is a day that will hopefully be not in infamy but is perhaps the most important date in the history of the United States. And I don't mean to overexaggerate that, but Chris, are you up for that challenge?

CHRIS KRUEGER: I sure am. I'm delighted to be on number 50 with you all. History in the making.

PETER HAYNES: Am I exaggerating to say that November 5 might be the most important day in the US history?

CHRIS KRUEGER: We do have a sense that every election is the most important election. The stakes are incredibly high, for sure. We are 232 days out to November 5. We're 308 days out as we record this to January 20. My hope is that we have clarity the evening of Tuesday, November 5.

PETER HAYNES: While our conference is on Thursday, November 7, I know you'll be up to participate in a geopolitics panel. I just can only hope we have clarity by Thursday of who won the election and we don't deal with any of the nonsense we dealt with four years ago. Just before we dig in on the road to the US election, Frank, I want to spend a minute on an important upcoming event here in Canada.

On Saturday, March 23, Canada will lay to rest the 18th prime minister of Canada, The Right Honorable Brian Mulroney. Prime Minister Mulroney was a good friend of yours, Frank. Can you please take a moment to tell us about the legacy of Brian Mulroney.

FRANK MCKENNA: Well, we were good friends, and I feel the loss very painfully. Personally, we think we've talked pretty well I would say almost every week up until his death. We were kindred spirits, both Irish Catholics coming from small little communities. He went to high school in Chatham, New Brunswick, which I represented in the legislature. We both attended, not at the same time, but we both graduated from Saint Francis Xavier University.

And in latter years, we headed fundraising campaigns at St. Thomas, and at StFX, we co-chaired the Atlantic Economic Conference, and just had so many commonalities with he and with their families. So it was painful to lose him. His memory is going to be one of very positive accomplishment. There are a number of legacy projects, such as the Confederation Bridge, Hibernia, Four Lane Highways across much of the East Coast region.

And then some really transformational public policy, like the GST, which gave to Canada a consumption tax, which every country in the world that doesn't have a consumption tax is trying to get, highly efficient way of taxing people. He led the war against apartheid single-handedly in isolation for a large part of that and did that successfully, was able to tackle climate change with an acid rain treaty that was very popular in both sides of the border, and negotiated with his very, very close friend, Ronald Reagan the original free trade agreement, which was signed in 1988 and was extraordinarily contentious in Canada.

It was the subject of an election. People thought that he was getting too close to the Americans. The negotiation itself was contentious. And at the end, he had to really put his relationship on the line with Reagan in order to be able to get a dispute resolution clause, which resulted in the deal being signed.

And then in 1992, NAFTA took place, and people don't realize how consequential that was. It was intended to be a bilateral treaty between Mexico and the United States, and Mulroney was able to prevail on his friendship with George HW Bush and make it a tripartite agreement, which, of course, NAFTA then morphed into CUSMA more recently.

So he drew down a lot of capital to introduce a lot of measures. And they all have the same thing in common, that is that they've stood the test of time. And when you can have public policy that stands the test of time, that truly is an accomplishment.

PETER HAYNES: It absolutely is, and it was a sad loss for our country. The Canadian government announced a lying in state in Ottawa prior to a state funeral in Montreal on March 23 and flags at half staff from the date of his death February 29 to March 23.

Frank, I want to ask you about how we in Canada honor our former prime ministers upon passing. South of the border, 99-year-old Jimmy Carter has been receiving hospice care for a year now, and he's outlived his expected lifespan. And sadly, he will pass at some point in the not too distant future. In the US, when a president passes, it is flags at half staff for 30 days with a five-day state funeral and a national day of mourning in which governments shut down, and stock markets normally close.

Now, I know there is some discretion with the president. They could ask the questions early in their term about how they want to be dealt with posthumously. But regardless, are we doing enough to honor The Right Honorable Brian Mulroney?

FRANK MCKENNA: I think that spontaneously, a great deal is happening. I don't think that we do enough organically in the case of the loss of a prime minister at all. But spontaneously, there has been quite a lot happening, flags provincially and federally are spontaneously being flown at half mast. I was at a hockey game in Toronto this week, and I was at one in Montreal.

And in both cases, there was a tribute paid to The Right Honorable Brian Mulroney in a moment of silence. I thought that was good. There's a lying in state taking place, and in fact, I'll be there tomorrow in Ottawa, which will be taking place for two days, and then lying in repose in Montreal, followed by the funeral on Saturday, which will be massive.

And I have to say this, Brian Mulroney would have loved it. He lived a lot of his political life under the cloud of criticism for many of the things that he did. And I had occasion to introduce him many events. And he called me before the very last event that I introduced to Matt and just asked me how my introduction was going.

And I said, I think I'm in pretty good shape, Brian, but it seems a little too laudatory. And he said, Frank, don't you worry about that. You can't lavish enough praise. I can handle a lot.

[LAUGHTER]

And he would have been really touched by the outpouring of grief in our country. My wife and I were talking about it this week, and we joked that Brian would have died earlier if he had any idea of how much love he would be receiving.

But quickly finish this off, no, we really don't sufficiently honor our former leaders. We don't retain the title, right honorable, or Mr. President. We call all of the presidents, but in Canada, it's not. Everybody who uses that title legally, you're not required to use it. I think that's a mistake. There's very little aftercare. Used to host events at the bank that I would invite former prime minister John Turner to.

And he'd come down on the subway, he had a cane then, and he'd have to fight his way on the subway and off the subway and find his way to the meeting room with nobody to look after him at all, and it was really embarrassing. In the United States, former presidents have massive amounts of security long after they're out of office. When I host events with former presidents, we have Secret Service come probably a week in advance, and we get a large number of Secret Service agents protecting their president.

And they also have centers named after them, which is not only honorific but also an asset to the country. And I've had the pleasure to be at the Kennedy Center, and went to the Clinton Center in Little Rock, Arkansas, and the Carter Center in Plains, Georgia. And there were other centers all over the United States. Centers for the Bushes in Texas, and California for Reagan, and now one for Obama in Chicago.

And these are landmarks that become part of the iconic nature of the United States for years to come, and we don't do that. In the case of Mulroney, we've raised privately money, and we created the Mulroney Center at StFX. Caroline, his daughter, and I headed that fundraising campaign. But truthfully, most of the money came in from Americans, who were much more intent on preserving the legacy than Canadians. So the straight answer to your query is that, no, we don't do enough.

PETER HAYNES: Well, you make a very good case there, absolutely, and hopefully people are listening. And perhaps this will be an opportunity for some change to happen on a go forward basis. Frank, you're probably familiar with the skit that happens at the end of TSN Sportscentre with Jay Onrait called You Blew It, where they go over all the mistakes that the hosts made in the show.

Well, we needed to do that in our last episode, as I wrongly declared back in February that President Putin was victorious in the Russian elections. That actually just happened this past weekend. Well, I have a news flash, Frank. Putin won, in case you were wondering. And I thought you might be a bit surprised by that result.

But Chris, in all seriousness, the Russian invasion of Ukraine is one of many foreign affairs issues that will be important ballot box items in the US election, alongside the US government's approach to Israel and perhaps its position on China between the various presidential candidates.

Most US elections are won or lost on the economy and policies at home. Recall Bill Clinton strategist James Carville once stated that the outcome of the '92 election was determined, quote, "by the economy, stupid." Do you think these foreign issues in 2024 will be more relevant than normal? Can you give us some historical context for the importance of domestic versus foreign issues in litigating the US election?

CHRIS KRUEGER: Sure. Well, look, I mean, I think politics, like life, is cyclical. I mean, you mentioned 1992, then-president George HW Bush was hoping that election was going to be about the Persian Gulf War. The pendulum moved, and foreign policy was trumped by domestic policy.

Fast forward 10 years, and his son George W. Bush won the 2002 midterms largely over 9/11 and then won re-election in 2004 largely over the Iraq war. So the pendulum is always swinging, though the velocity of the pendulum seems to be off the charts of late. Traditionally, you would vote with your pocketbook, right? Your pocketbook would dictate who you vote for.

But now, it almost seems like who you vote for dictates whether or not you're happy about your pocketbook, meaning that your perception of the economy is vastly colored by your political viewpoint, be it right, left, or something in the middle.

PETER HAYNES: So are you saying on the pendulum, just to be clear, that it has swung incredibly towards foreign policy for this election, just to be clear?

CHRIS KRUEGER: No. I think the pendulum broke maybe from the velocity. I'm not totally sure where we are. This is shaping up to be an election that probably is going to be decided by the so-called double haters, right? We have two of the most unpopular candidates in American history, and it's going to probably be that call it 10% right now of undeclared voters who have a negative viewpoint of both President Biden and former President Trump, and it's the largest unpopularity contest in American history.

PETER HAYNES: Yeah. Well, we're going to dig in on exactly how that's going to play out here in the next few minutes. Frank, should we be thinking about these foreign issues as one or separate, and can you rank them personally in importance in determining the outcome of the US election?

FRANK MCKENNA: Well, I think both are terribly tragic and hugely destabilizing. In terms of being consequential, I think for the world, the Ukraine invasion by Russia is the more consequential and for one or two basic reasons. These are two of the largest producers of natural resources in the world, whether we're talking about oil, or gas, or nickel, or potash, et cetera. It's inherently inflationary, and it's also potentially more globally impactful in terms of the long shot, I hope it never happens, of this breaking into a nuclear event or even escaping from Ukraine and into Eastern Europe.

So the potential for escalation is quite serious. But in terms of US politics, I'm inclined to think the Mideast conflict is more consequential. There are large diasporas in the United States. They've got huge amounts of energy. And Chris knows more about this, but certainly states like Michigan, and maybe even Minnesota, and perhaps even others, considering how close the margins are in a lot of these states, could be affected.

And it hurts the Democrats more I would say on the surface. The Republicans, their evangelical wing particularly who believe the second coming will be in Israel, are strongly supportive of Israel, and they don't seem to have as much dissension. The Democrats, their progressive wing, and their supporters, and some of the states like the ones I've mentioned, are really finding this very, very difficult for them politically.

So I would say probably the Democrats are hurting much more politically on this issue. And whether it affects the final outcome depends. If we're down to a game of inches, just about anything that could affect the turnout or votes in battleground states could affect the outcome.

PETER HAYNES: Frank, I can't believe that China doesn't make it onto the list right now, given Trump talking about 10% across the board, import taxes, and how inflationary that could be, and just obviously, all the talk about China with Taiwan in the past. Are we forgetting about China in terms of it being an election item for the United States?

FRANK MCKENNA: I don't think that it's going to be the causa valid, let me put it that way, but it will intrude on the debate. Some of the rhetoric is boiling hot right now directed towards China. So it could definitely be an issue. And then you've got statements like Trump this week indicating that he would attack the auto plants that are being set up in Mexico producing cars. He'd be putting 100% tariff on them. So there's a potential for an awful lot of issues to get out of control over the next few months.

PETER HAYNES: Chris, let's just dig in a little bit more on one of the items that Frank talked about around Arabs in the United States. When Hamas invaded Israel in October and took the lives of over 1,000 civilians, the center of the world's attention moved back to the Middle East and the manner with which Israel countered that terrible assault on innocent Israelis. Now, it is concern for innocent Palestinian lives that has the world's attention.

Now, as Frank mentioned, there are some hotspots in the US in purple states like Michigan where Arab populations could have an impact on the election. Is the debate over support for Israel in the Biden campaign important enough in isolation to swing a state like Michigan?

CHRIS KRUEGER: Absolutely. Maybe just backing up, I mean, yes, it's a national election. But the mechanism that elects the president and vice president is the electoral college, and that's based on population within the states. And what we're going to be talking about endlessly until November are really the five key states that are going to matter, and that's the five key states that Donald Trump flipped in 2016 when he defeated Hillary Clinton, and these are the same five states that Joe Biden flipped in 2020 when he beat Trump. It's Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

What do all five of those states have in common? They all have a lot of college kids. The Biden administration's Middle East policy has been extremely controversial on college campuses. Biden's numbers with that 18 to 24-year-old demographic are pretty soft. You also have these third party challengers, Robert Kennedy, Jr., Cornel West, Jill Stein, who are likely to continue to erode into Biden's base on the college campuses.

And the other issue that is a little bit more unique to Michigan but that is two of the largest Arab population centers between Detroit and Dearborn. So you add all that up, we're talking about an election that could come down to fewer than 50,000 combined votes. So yes, margins matter. Whether it's a single policy, the Middle East, or it's a single demographic, yes, this is going to be very close. And right now, within Michigan, the Biden campaign does have two big problems there.

PETER HAYNES: So Frank, just following on the history of the Middle East, it's very complex. And one thing we do know about former President Trump is that he doesn't read past the first page of his memos. At least, that's what all of his former advisors have said. Do you think that President Trump's lack of familiarity with the history of Israel may prove to be a liability as this topic is debated in the coming months?

FRANK MCKENNA: I think what's going to be even more important than a lack of history is his inability to separate public policy from his own personal grievances. In the case of Israel, this in many ways should be a bit of a no-brainer, answering what Trump's view would be. He's been a strong supporter of the state of Israel, been a full-throated defender of moving the embassy, and would be considered a great friend of Israel.

On the other hand, he's allowed personal animus to make him a very hostile critic of Netanyahu. He's criticized Netanyahu for intelligence failures and allowing the attacks to take place. He's called Hezbollah very, very smart. And if you scratch as to the reasons why he's in love with Israel but hostile Netanyahu, it's because Netanyahu conceded the election in the United States to Biden after an appropriate period of time, and Trump thinks that is an act of disloyalty, number one.

And then secondly, the United States carried out a mission to assassinate Qasem Soleimani, and they wanted Israel to participate in that, and Israel didn't participate in that. And that's been a sore point between Trump and Netanyahu. So bottom line is the Republican Party is very, very strongly supportive of Israel, as is Trump, but perhaps far less supportive of the leader of the government in Israel right now, Netanyahu.

PETER HAYNES: Speaking of Netanyahu, what did you think of Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer's speech from the floor of Congress last week that was pressuring the Israeli leader in to hold elections?

FRANK MCKENNA: I thought it was surprising and even shocking. He's the most senior Jewish leader. Now, what he did in that speech actually, but it perhaps wasn't as carefully documented, is try to separate Israel and Netanyahu and try to make clear that support of Israel is absolute, that Netanyahu should be calling an election and presumably moving himself from the scene.

Bottom line is because you asked the question, I would say that there is an element of ramping up pressure as there was from Schultz in Germany this week and other international leaders ramping up pressure to try to mitigate civilian casualties. That would be one motivation.

But secondly, I think it's domestic politics. The Democrats are getting absolutely hammered on this, and their progressive base is really having a difficult time accepting the approach the United States is taking. So it may very well be a sop to that progressive wing of the Democratic Party to show that they're standing up to Netanyahu.

PETER HAYNES: Yeah. It's hard sometimes to separate the politics from the truth. Chris, as we switch to domestic policy, it is clear that it is impossible to completely separate domestic from foreign policy as these two items are linked through funding. Can you bring our listeners up to speed on the latest budget deliberations in Congress which involve linking funding in Ukraine to increase funds for border security at the southern US border?

CHRIS KRUEGER: Yeah. Well, so the discretionary side of the federal budget in the US is through what's called the appropriations process. There are 12 individual bills that fund all the various agencies, from the Pentagon, to the labor department, to the FDA, et cetera.

Half of those bills have been signed into law. The remaining six, which account for about 75% of the total spend, remain outstanding. Five of them though are basically done. The sixth one is the one that's the most problematic from a policy and political standpoint, and that's the bill that funds the Homeland Security Department, which is the agency amongst other things that deals with the border specifically the US-Mexico border.

The side part of all of this is what's known as the security supplemental. This is the foreign aid and military aid package. The Senate on a big bipartisan vote approved nearly $100 billion. Ukraine and Israel are the two biggest beneficiaries of this package. Each issue divides each party differently.

Ukraine really splits Republicans with sort of the Trumpy wing being in opposition and more the Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush wing being in support. Aid to Israel split the Democratic Party without corresponding aid or humanitarian relief for Gaza and the Palestinians as well.

We are likely to get resolution on the six bills before this goes to print. Defense spending got about a 3.2% increase. Non-defense spending was flat. So we can take government shutdown risks off the card until October 1 when the new fiscal year begins. Probably sometime after the Easter recess, a bipartisan package will come together that is probably in the $60 billion range that will fund Ukraine, Israel, Gaza, Taiwan, continued Red Sea operations, a handful of others. We can close the books on the FY-24 budget saga.

PETER HAYNES: You didn't include the southern border in that. Are they no longer linked?

CHRIS KRUEGER: We'll have to wait and see what the Homeland Security Appropriation bill looks like, but there's not that linkage as much as there was. Some of the middle ground on Ukraine, and Senator Lindsey Graham is meeting with the leader of Ukraine as we record this.

The middle ground on Ukraine to get a bill out of the house could well be some type of lend lease agreement, so that the money for Ukraine is structured as a loan with a pretty favorable coupon, not unlike some of the programs at the beginning of World War II to get around American neutrality measures. Something like that seems like the path forward on Ukraine funding.

PETER HAYNES: And obviously, former President Trump has made that an election issue. At least he's spent a lot of time talking about the southern border being an election issue. So I'm assuming we'll hear more about that in the debates as we move forward in the year. Frank, by all accounts and measures, the US economy is thriving. It's outperforming just about any other developed economy.

Inflation is falling at the same time. Unemployment is at new lows. And the US stock market, which has been historically Trump's magic formula to measure success, is at all time highs. Yet, Americans are finding reasons to criticize the economy, namely related to food inflation. Frank, what can the Biden administration do to change the narrative about the economy?

FRANK MCKENNA: To start with, I would say in order for people to receive messages, they have to have their ears open. And in the case of America, as we know it at the moment, it's highly polarized. You've got think it's 30% of the population who do not recognize Biden as the legitimate President. They believe the election was stolen.

So it's going to be pretty hard to convince them of a favorable view of Biden. The rest of the population I think are feeling the impact of inflation. People are just sick and tired of being sick and tired. We went through two years of being locked up during the pandemic, so to speak. We've seen significant inflation, some of it flowing out of the pandemic, a lot of it flowing out of what's going on in Ukraine-Russia. It's just factual when people are in a grocery store, they feel it, and they feel the pain. Interest rates exacerbate that, of course.

So one thing that will happen is that interest rates will, in the fullness of time, come down, obviously not quickly enough for the Biden people, but they will in the fullness of time come down. As they do, I think that headline presence will be removed, and that in itself may make people feel a little better. It's hard to convince a public that right now, we're feeling pretty beaten up. And the politics of the upcoming election make it very difficult to get messages through all the flak that's being thrown into the air.

PETER HAYNES: Chris, as we talk about the debate over the significance of third parties we talked a little bit about earlier, it looks like the rumored centrist party that was nicknamed No Labels and was going to have Joe Manchin, that's not happening. However, as you mentioned other potential disruptors, I want to understand exactly how Cornel West and RFK Jr.'s ballot standings as independents will matter.

And then you mentioned Jill Stein, who I believe is currently going through a process to be the leader of the Green Party and winning dramatically. Her name obviously impacted Hillary Clinton several years ago. How do those three individuals affect the outcome of this election?

CHRIS KRUEGER: Sure. We'll throw No Labels in there as well because we never are quite sure. But so No Labels is a centrist organization. The idea was have a split Republican-Democratic ticket-- one being president, the other being vice president. High water mark, probably maybe a year ago, and sort of it was a Joe Manchin vehicle, or a Mitt Romney, or Huntsman, or Sinema, or someone kind of like a tier one type candidate.

And gradually, all of these folks, including Dean Phillips who challenged Biden for the nomination and Nikki Haley publicly have said they will not run, their belief is that this will help former president Trump because it's a lot of those double haters who leaning towards Biden, but they're natural soft Biden voters.

So No Labels most recently had the former Republican lieutenant governor of Georgia. He just Monday said he was no longer going to be a candidate. So No Labels is going to, if they are going to pull the trigger, they've got to decide in the next couple of weeks. Robert Kennedy, Jr. Is said to announce his Vice Presidential pick next week. Kennedy has a ton of money. Kennedy is going to be on a lot of the ballots in those states that matter.

Cornel West also on a handful, as well as Jill Stein. Are any of these candidates going to be the next president of the United States? No, they're not. 1992 was kind of the high water mark with Ross Perot. Perot nearly took 20% of the vote, got exactly zero electoral votes. But again, margins really matter. And particularly West and Stein are pulling from Biden's camp, right? In my mind, there's not a voter out there who's hemming and hawing between Donald Trump and Cornel West.

Robert Kennedy, Jr., a little bit more unique, certainly is going to draw votes from both. The Trump campaign has been a lot more vocal in its criticisms of Kennedy. Biden, other than putting out a St. Patrick's Day photo with all of pretty much the living Kennedys with him at the White House, hasn't done much against the Kennedy candidacy. Candidly, I think the West and Stein candidacies are more of a clear and present threat to Biden because those are natural Biden voters, again, with the geography too.

You go back to 2016. Jill Stein's vote total in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan exceeded Trump's win margin in those three states. I think this is one of the biggest headwinds for Biden. No Labels is sort of the show horse. But really, I think the workhorse here will be West and Stein and seeing what the Biden campaign can do to try to minimize some of the erosion within their base.

PETER HAYNES: OK. Follow-on. Cornel West. Is there any chance he drops out, or does he run right through for sure?

CHRIS KRUEGER: It's politics. Sort of we exist in a 15% to 85% range. He seems quite animated, particularly over Biden's Middle East policy. Now, could there be some type of deal closer to the election? Could someone like Bernie Sanders reach out? West was a huge surrogate for Sanders in previous elections.

So I think there are lines of communication, but could West extract something from the policy platform at the convention, right? There are some obvious outs here. But I think the sooner we get to the convention, the more those conversations are going to have to happen.

PETER HAYNES: OK. Next follow-on. RFK's claiming that he might have as vice president be a person that's busy on Sundays by the name of Aaron Rodgers. If that's the case, that's interesting. But more importantly, what's the latest on Trump's running mate?

CHRIS KRUEGER: We know one thing for sure, and that it won't be Mike Pence. That is the prism in which I think Trump will make this determination though, right? For Trump, the vice president, above all else, has to be loyal. Trump has said that he will not select a white male again. So I think there's sort of two camps here. There's the going to pick a female. And I think in that camp, it's people like South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Congresswoman Elise Stefanik from Upstate New York.

The other camp I think is folks like the former HHS Secretary Ben Carson, Senator Tim Scott, Florida Congressman Byron Donalds. I think that's sort of the universe of folks. Who knows, timing-wise, but it's got to be before or at the convention, which is July 15.

PETER HAYNES: Yeah. Well, we'll be watching that closely. Frank, the octogenarian debate over the ages of the two candidates has become a headline topic. And up until the State of the Union a couple of weeks ago, it appeared that Trump was winning the narrative over Biden as the President's mental capacity continues to be questioned. Do you think President Biden did enough to quell those concerns with his rather fiery address at the state of the Union?

FRANK MCKENNA: Peter, I'm going to answer that, but I just want to digress for a moment from Chris's conversation. And particularly, at the risk of insulting people who are listening who support the Green Party, I think it's the height of insanity for the Green Party to be running a candidate against Joe Biden.

In the words of one of the communities that grew up in, they'd rather fight than win. It was the Green candidacy that probably cost Al Gore his election, probably cost Hillary Clinton her election, and could very well elect Donald Trump. So I just don't understand how people who are so ideologically committed to climate remediation can do what they're doing, but that's a total aside.

On the issue that you've raised, my view is that it did help. It was a very strong showing at the State of the Union. And I think where it helped though it may not be so much with the general public, but it did help with some pearl-clutching Democrats who have been nervous Nellies about the age issue around Joe Biden.

I think it helped with them. He's going to have to do a lot more in order to satisfy the great mass of voters in the United States. They're also going to have to do what more of what they're doing now, which is bringing Kamala Harris out, the vice president, and trying to show that she's up for the job should anything happen to the president.

I would say that she hasn't had a lot of definition over the last 3 and 1/2 years or so or three years, and she needs to be seen as more presidential and have more definition. They seem to be working a bit at that. But I would say in direct answer, a lot more needs to be done than simply one speech at the State of the Union.

PETER HAYNES: Especially if he has any follow-on hiccups, falls down, or has a difficulty with remembering what he was talking about. That would obviously be an issue. But again, I mean, you see these clips on YouTube of Trump forgetting where he is every once in a while too. It must be difficult when you're on the stump, and you're just constantly speaking in front of people to keep your attention. As an aside, you're on the stump, and you forgot where you were, or you just were saying the same thing so many times, it kind of just started to all come out as mumble jumble. Do you have a funny story in that regard?

FRANK MCKENNA: When you get into a campaign, and you're hitting three or four stumps every day, and you give the same stump speech, and you just try to make sure that you pick the right community and the right candidate and plug and play. I remember one day walking into the house, and I heard a noise in the basement. And I walked down, and my son is there with a bunch of his friends, and he's giving my speech word for word almost. He'd been to so many of my events, he knew exactly what I was going to say. So after a while, it's just one community morphs into another, one candidate into another. And you're lucky if you can remember your wife by the end of a campaign. You get pretty punched on.

PETER HAYNES: Yeah. Unfortunately, all the soundbites and social media make these folks look bad when in fact, it is a difficult job to be going place to place and having to constantly be on your game. So Chris, you may know this, but if you didn't, Frank is a former litigator, and he's actually quite famous for his role as a defense attorney in New Brunswick earlier in his career.

In fact, you could google the case of the Fighting Fisherman Yvon Durelle to get a sense of what this guy was like in court. Anyways, Frank said last month that if he was Trump's attorney, he would do exactly what is obviously the strategy being utilized by the defense team, and that is delay, delay, delay. Polling shows there is a significant portion of Republican voters and undecideds that would not vote for a convicted candidate.

Chris, do you think that Trump will be able to avoid conviction prior to November 5?

CHRIS KRUEGER: The odds of that have certainly gone up over the past couple of weeks for sure. Let me just draw a distinction though between the criminal and the civil. One area where Trump's lawyers have had real success, I think objectively you just have to say that, is on the criminal side.

You've had at one point 91 indictments spread across four separate trials. You had the New York so-called hush money case that was supposed to start in March. That is now pushed out till April if not May. The January 6 case in Washington, DC brought by the special counsel was supposed to already be underway. That is now on pause until at least September. That's due to the Supreme Court agreeing to hear Trump's claim of total presidential immunity.

That Supreme Court action has an all likelihood also pushed out the so-called documents case in Florida probably until at least September as well. And then you have the Georgia case where a judge struck down six of the indictments, all of the headlines around that case as well. The earliest that would go is August.

So outside of that New York case, hard to see how you could have a conviction just given the compressed calendar time frame here. One area where Trump's lawyers have not had success is on the civil side. He did get a bond for the Jean Carroll defamation suit, but as of this recording, hasn't been able to get a bond for the nearly half a billion dollar New York ruling with the New York attorney general now saying perhaps she would have to seize property in New York or other venues. So the pendulum is broken. We are way off the map here. But from a criminal conviction standpoint, the delay, delay, delay strategy is paying dividends.

PETER HAYNES: That's going to be interesting. It's going to get busy in the fall. And as you write, we might have cases going, and then we're running an election at the same time. So Frank, let's just, as we finish up here, Is there any other nugget-- Like we've turned over a ton of rocks so far in this conversation, covered a lot of area. Is there anything else that we should be watching as we approach the election that could have an impact on the outcome?

FRANK MCKENNA: I think there's a few interesting things. One, Mike Pence declaring that he could not endorse Trump. And I think that makes now something like 44 former cabinet officials saying something similar. I don't know whether that will move the dial, but I think it's instructive.

Something that concerns me, because I just don't happen to agree ideologically, is both Trump and Biden going full nativist-- Trump talking about putting up a wall against manufacturers in Mexico, Biden talking about opposing the US steel takeover by Nippon Steel. It's not going to be good if that theme gets repeated over and over again.

And then just quickly, on the good news side, Northern Ireland has elected a new government, and it would appear as if we're finally starting to see a breakthrough in the fighting between protestants and Catholics in that arena. That's awfully good news, and it's one more step. A long way to go but one more step towards the reunification of Ireland. And Poland has elected a pro-European government that is much more cooperative. So every now and then, good news whirling out of the mist, and those are a few items of good news.

PETER HAYNES: And I think it's September, if I remember correctly, there are three debates, presidential debates. And I want to say the first one is in September. Chris, correct me if I'm wrong. Frank or Chris, do you guys think the debates will ultimately determine the outcome of this election, who wins the debates, or are they just going to be theater? What do you think, Chris?

CHRIS KRUEGER: Oh I would be very surprised if there were debates. There might be a debate, but I would take the under on plural. You know, Trump is already saying, we need to have multiple debates. But right now, I would be surprised if they ended up having a debate.

PETER HAYNES: I thought that they were legislated. Are they not legislated to have debates?

CHRIS KRUEGER: No. LBJ and Goldwater didn't have a debate. I mean, I know I'm going back in time here, but no. There's no requirement. There is a commission that sets up the debates with the dates, et cetera, there's one scheduled for the VP. But a year ago, right? then candidate DeSantis was questioning whether or not he would debate. There's been a widespread belief among conservatives that the debates lean in to the Democratic Party because the moderators typically are journalists who tend to be more left-leaning than Repu-- And it's sort of who in the world are you going to find that both camps can agree on to moderate this?

Don't forget the Trump-Biden debates from 2020. I think most of us have tried to forget them. We'll see if there is one. Trump didn't engage in the debates on the Republican side. And you know, his numbers probably went up from that.

PETER HAYNES: Well, that's a lot of politics for this month. So let's end on a lighter note. I recall from our previous discussions, Chris, and you spent the better part of your adult life in Washington, that you are in fact a Washington Nationals fan. Give us your over-under on the number of wins for the nationals this year as they play in a very difficult National League East Division.

CHRIS KRUEGER: It's tough. I mean, I remain, first and foremost, my heart remains in New England. But you know, Nats versus Red Sox, we do have a new coach for the Washington Commanders, so that'll be good sports, and Washington is also a little unclear if the stadium is going to be moved around, et cetera. But it's always nice when the Nats are winning, but it doesn't look great.

PETER HAYNES: You've got some good young talent in your organization. So maybe in a couple of years when we're having this conversation, you'll be a little bit happier. But I bet you the over-under between the Nationals and the Red Sox is probably very close because the Red Sox, sadly for you, but I'm quite happy about this, will likely end up in last place in the American League East.

And of course, Frank, that brings us to a Frank McKenna spring training update on the Jays. What do you like? What don't you like? And are you one of those cynics that thinks management brought in Joey Votto simply as a distraction from what was otherwise a failed management offseason?

FRANK MCKENNA: Actually, I don't. On the latter, I'm not a huge fan of management, what they've been able to accomplish. But I think Joey Votto really wanted to-- he's been a lifelong fan of the Jays, he's a Canadian. I think he just wanted to leave as a Jay, at least take his best shot at even making the team. And it's instructive that he hit a home run his first bat up time at bat.

And in terms of the team itself, I haven't made it down to spring training mainly because of all of the Mulroney events here that I'm attending. But I like the way Bichette is playing, a lot. Guerrero hitting the ball hard. Kirk is looking pretty good early going. I think Turner may end up being an asset for the team. Varsho is just playing his heart out, looking pretty good, Springer, and so on.

So on the plus side, that looks pretty good. On the downside, we've got Gausman, who's got kind of an injured wing. And Manoah, we don't know what either one of those guys is going to do and how quickly they'll be able to do it in the lineup. And Danny Jansen's got a bit of an injury, the same kind of an injury he gets all the time. And that's getting hit by a pitch and taking one of his fingers out or something. So I worry a little about the depth in our catching now, and I worry a little about the depth in our pitching. But I live in hope, Peter. I start the season with a lot of hope.

PETER HAYNES: Well, we start the season tied with every other team. So we're in first place right now. And let's hope when we come back a month from now, we're still in first place. Chris, if you're kind enough, we'd love to have you back later this summer as we get closer to November. And obviously, we'll see you in person on November 7 in Toronto. And for now, that's enough for this month. Thanks a lot, Frank. Thanks a lot, Chris. That was great.

CHRIS KRUEGER: Thanks, guys.

FRANK MCKENNA: Thank you.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

This podcast should not be copied, distributed, published or reproduced, in whole or in part. The information contained in this recording was obtained from publicly available sources, has not been independently verified by TD Securities, may not be current, and TD Securities has no obligation to provide any updates or changes. All price references and market forecasts are as of the date of recording. The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are not necessarily those of TD Securities and may differ from the views and opinions of other departments or divisions of TD Securities and its affiliates. TD Securities is not providing any financial, economic, legal, accounting, or tax advice or recommendations in this podcast. The information contained in this podcast does not constitute investment advice or an offer to buy or sell securities or any other product and should not be relied upon to evaluate any potential transaction. Neither TD Securities nor any of its affiliates makes any representation or warranty, express or implied, as to the accuracy or completeness of the statements or any information contained in this podcast and any liability therefore (including in respect of direct, indirect or consequential loss or damage) is expressly disclaimed.