Trump Blames Iran for Hitting Helicopter, Says US Must Respond

Summary

Podcast Summary: Balance of Power

Episode: Trump Blames Iran for Hitting Helicopter, Says US Must Respond

Date: June 9, 2026

Host: Bloomberg Washington Correspondents Joe Mathieu & Kailey Leinz
Key Contributors: Mick Mulvaney, Becca Wasser, Jeannie Shan Zaino, Rick Davis, Brooke Sutherland, Cliff Young

---

Overview

This episode dives into the rapidly evolving aftermath of a U.S. Apache helicopter going down near the Strait of Hormuz, with President Trump swiftly blaming Iran and declaring that the U.S. "must respond." The discussion explores:

• The credibility and escalation risks surrounding Iran–U.S. nuclear talks,
• The tightrope of military vs. diplomatic responses,
• Political ramifications for both domestic and international actors,
• The impact of foreign affairs on primary races and broader U.S. politics, including analysis of high-stakes Senate races in Maine and Texas.

The conversation blends expert insight with political analysis, offering granular updates on policy, negotiations, and electoral strategy.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Incident at the Strait of Hormuz: Facts & Uncertainties

[00:40] Kelly: "An Apache helicopter went down near the Strait of Hormuz. The two pilots weren't injured and rescued by a drone boat. President Trump says Iran was responsible and the US must respond... What we don't know is what that response will look like and how escalatory in nature it will be."

• The incident's intentionality is debated; U.S. investigation ongoing ([00:40]).
• Iran's role and intent remain unclear ([01:18] Joe: "The U.S. investigation has not yet determined whether or not Iran intended to do this.").

2. The State of Iran Nuclear Negotiations

[01:18] Joe: "The New York Times now reporting that the US believes Iran will settle on 15 years of suspension to enrich uranium, knowing that the United States had demanded at least 20 years."

• Negotiations focus on the duration of uranium enrichment suspension (10, 15, or 20 years).
• The helicopter incident threatens to complicate, if not derail, talks.

Mick Mulvaney’s Take

• The ongoing "ceasefire" is unstable: "Sort of the hottest cease fire I remember in recent memory... that's always the risk, right? When you... got a ceasefire that's not really a cease fire." ([02:45])
• On negotiation progress: "When you're down to just arguing about the price of something, you're going to get a deal done... But could things get out of hand? Yeah." ([02:45])
• On Trump’s credibility and timelines: "You take Donald Trump seriously, but not literally." ([02:45])

3. U.S. Domestic Political Calculus on Response

• Mulvaney: Any military action will be "minor" if talks are close to a deal, "larger" if stalemate persists ([05:18]).
• Political pressures complicate Trump’s position, both in negotiations and in the timing of any response.

4. Legislative Dynamics & Trump’s Cabinet Choices

• Issues around the anti-Weaponization fund and appointment of Bill Pulte as acting Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) could jeopardize FISA Section 702 reauthorization.
• Mulvaney: "My guess is... Pulte can't be the permanent [ODNI]... there's plenty of good other people out there." ([06:43])
• Naming a permanent ODNI director is likely necessary to win FISA reauthorization ([07:49]).
• Attendance issues due to primary elections complicate House votes on budget reconciliation ([08:58]).

5. Military Options & Risk of Escalation

Becca Wasser’s Defense Analysis

• "It's a political decision right now how to strike back and how intense... My read is that President Trump still wants to reach some type of deal... most likely to see... a measured response." ([13:51])
• Potential responses: precise strikes on military targets, escalation to energy infrastructure, or attacks on leadership—though the latter is deemed unlikely at this stage.
• Possibility of accidental or rogue actor involvement due to Iran’s decentralized military.

6. Political Panel: War, Public Opinion, and the 2026 Elections

Jeannie Shan Zaino

• Even if the attack is deemed accidental: "It's hard to imagine that he does not retaliate in some fashion... a proportional response to avoid the escalation." ([17:19])
• Ongoing limbo—"this middle ground that we're on now"—risks U.S. and global security and the world economy.

Rick Davis

• Trump faces pressure from hawkish Senators for a strong response, but must also avoid escalation that could galvanize antiwar sentiment and affect midterms ([19:16]).
• "At the end of the day, he's going to define a win in whatever way he thinks... then it's up to everybody else to define whether or not they agree." ([19:16])

Election Impacts

• War’s inflationary effects on gas and groceries might finally make foreign policy a voting issue in primaries ([21:07] Shan Zaino).
• In Maine, Republican Sen. Susan Collins likely to face Democrat Graham Platner—a candidate dogged by scandal but buoyed by anti-GOP sentiment.

---

Notable Quotes & Moments (with timestamps)

Negotiations and White House Strategy

• Mulvaney: "You take Donald Trump seriously, but not literally." ([02:45])
• Joe: "CNN counted the number of times the President has indicated we're on the verge of a deal... 37 times in just over 100 days." ([04:57])

On Domestic Politics and Cabinet Choices

• Mulvaney: "My guess is that Pulte can't be the permanent ODNI... the atmosphere right now in Washington towards that particular position is fairly poisonous." ([06:43])
• Mulvaney: "If Todd Blanche goes back on that word now... they'll probably end up being impeached... you can't tell the Senate XYZ and then immediately go back on your word." ([10:09])

Military and Political Calculations

• Becca Wasser: "It's a political decision right now how to strike back and how intense to strike back... I think what we are most likely to see is a measured response." ([13:51])
• Shan Zaino: "A proportional response to avoid the escalation... this middle ground that we're on now is... endangering the US Military, the United States, and the world economy." ([17:19])
• Rick Davis: "The one thing Iran may know how to do is negotiate. They may not know how to fight a war or run a country, but they've got this part down." ([19:16])

Impact on Senate Races

• Brooke Sutherland: "Democratic voters... not happy about the steady drip of scandal... but they're willing to hold their nose and vote for [Platner] because it's so important... to topple Susan Collins." ([30:43])
• Rick Davis: "These are all women Mainers, folks who know Platner... I don't think this is something he can escape with a throwaway line. But it's going to be a really tough year for Republicans." ([23:38])

Texas Senate Race

• Cliff Young: "Texas is a red state... but not this race specifically. Cost of living is the number one issue... Talarico is a talent. He has a lot of interesting attributes, and that's why we see him up in the polls today." ([32:56]-[35:03])
• Cliff Young: "The president's in a fairly good place... In Texas specifically he's at 46% approval rating. He is strong now." ([37:01])

---

Important Segments (with Timestamps)

• 00:40 – 02:45: Breakdown of the helicopter incident and background on negotiations
• 02:45 – 04:57: Mick Mulvaney discusses risks of escalation and Trump’s international credibility
• 05:18 – 07:49: Responses to potential U.S. retaliation and domestic political fallout
• 08:34 – 11:58: House votes, reconciliation, FISA issues, and primary day attendance impacting lawmaking
• 13:06 – 16:26: Becca Wasser on military response options and Iran’s military structure
• 17:19 – 22:11: Political panel explores how foreign policy, inflation, and war are shaping primaries and public opinion
• 22:47 – 25:28: Maine Senate race — Platner’s scandal and Collins’ re-election prospects
• 29:15 – 32:09: Brooke Sutherland on Maine Democratic primary and national implications
• 32:38 – 37:25: Cliff Young with Ipsos poll insight on Texas Senate race, affordability issues, Trump approval

---

Takeaways

• Escalatory Risk: The helicopter incident puts U.S.-Iran talks at a tipping point, with measured response likely, but room remains for miscalculation.
• Trump’s Credibility: International counterparts interpret Trump’s tactical optimism with skepticism; his threats and deadlines are widely seen as negotiating postures rather than literal commitments.
• Domestic Politics: Cabinet appointments and congressional attendance (due to primaries) add layers of complexity to foreign and domestic legislative agendas.
• Electoral Impact: 2026 midterms may see unusual voter focus on affordability and foreign policy — especially in battleground Senate races (Maine, Texas).
• Senate Battlegrounds: Scandal and party loyalty define Maine; cost-of-living and candidate quality drive Texas, where even Republican strongholds show unexpected competition.

---

This episode expertly weaves real-time developments in U.S. foreign policy with the domestic political chessboard, revealing the complex tensions facing President Trump and his party amid a volatile international and electoral environment.

Transcript

[Mick Mulvaney]

At Duke Energy, we're making smart investments to add enough capacity to power 10.5 million more homes over the next five years.

[Joe]

It's all part of our commitment to

[Mick Mulvaney]

deliver the reliable energy America needs. Learn more at duke-energy.com poweringamerica

[Bloomberg Announcer]

Bloomberg Audio Studios Podcasts Radio News. You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch us live weekdays at noon and 5pm Eastern on Apple CarPlay and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business app. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts or watch us live on YouTube.

[Kelly]

What we know here in Washington, meantime, is a few things for sure. One being that an Apache helicopter went down near the Strait of Hormuz. The two pilots weren't injured and rescued by a drone boat. We also know, based on President Trump, that Iran was responsible for that downing and that President Trump's view is that the US Must respond to that attack on what we don't know is what that response will look like and how escalatory in nature it will be. And that may be informed by the other thing we don't know, which is whether or not this was actually an intentional attack. As Axios reported just a few minutes ago, Joe that the U.S. investigation has not yet determined whether or not that Iran intended to do this.

[Joe]

It's true, knowing that the President of the United States just late yesterday was talking about a peace deal being signed in the next two to three days. So there's some pretty big questions on how all of these storylines lines meet. With the New York Times now reporting that the US believes Iran will settle on 15 years of suspension to enrich uranium, knowing that the United States had demanded at least 20 years. And when we started talking about duration, this really gave the markets a lift weeks ago, knowing that if we had gotten to this point that a deal would be likely. We're simply working out the timelines and it appears that we are back to that, or at least some parties are. With the US Demanding for months that Iran agreed to conduct no enrichment for at least 20 years, the Iranians countered by offering 10American officials believe they will settle for 15 years. But the added layer of this Apache helicopter being shot down really complicates things, and we're glad to have a couple of moments with Mick Mulvaney. It's been a while since we've spent some time with the former acting White House Chief of staff from President Trump's first term, co founder of the Freedom Caucus when he was a congressman, former OMB Director, former Acting CFPB Director Mick it's great to have you back. As part of our conversation, give us a sense of how the shooting down of this Apache helicopter, while still being investigated, might change the contours of this peace deal.

[Mick Mulvaney]

Sure. Well, I mean, it's sort of been the strangest cease fire I think any of us have experienced in a long time. Sort of the hottest cease fire I remember in recent memory. But that's always the risk, right? When you, when you've got a ceasefire, that's not really a cease fire. What are the chances of escalation? Whether or not it's intentional escalation or unintentional, you just don't know. Look, the fact that we're talking about 10 years versus 15 years versus 20 years, that's a really good sign towards getting a deal. Why? Because I used to tell President Trump, you know, when you're down to just arguing about the price of something, you're going to get a deal done. So it sounds like they're speaking each other's language, at least in terms of the number of years, if that's the case. But could things get out of hand? Yeah. Look, the bottom line is this. I don't think anybody believes the president anymore when he says it's two days, it's three days, it's two weeks, it's three weeks, it's. I think they see what he's doing, which is he's trying to build momentum and build optimism, but they can't take that literally. Keep in mind, you take Donald Trump seriously, but not literally. And I don't think we're two or three days away from anything, so we'll see where that goes.

[Kelly]

Well, so how are the Iranians supposed to take the president, Mick? Doesn't he need to be a credible, believable negotiator?

[Mick Mulvaney]

Oh, no, he's absolutely credible. Keep in mind, the big thing about making threats, of course, is if they are credible. And any threat the Americans make, especially to you use military power, is absolutely 100% credible. The threats to use economic weaponry, sanctions and so forth, is absolutely credible. So when I say it's not two or three days, I don't think the Iranians care if it's two or three days. They see what's happening on the ground, they know who they are talking to. Actions are speaking louder than words there. I'm talking about the domestic audience back home, the markets and so forth. If the markets are listening to him literally and thinking, oh, my goodness, we'll have a deal, you know, how long ago has it been, Kelly? Since we had, he gave the national press address. It was going to be two to three weeks. This war will be over. Has been six weeks ago.

[Kelly]

So look, it was early April, right?

[Mick Mulvaney]

Yeah, exactly. So it's just at some point you have to, you have to have the actions back things up. It sounds like there is some progress, so that's good. But I don't take a two to three day timeline literally at all.

[Joe]

CNN counted the number of times the President has indicated we're on the verge of a deal like this. It was 37. And what is now a conflict lasting just over 100 days. Mick, when you read down the President's truth post about the Apache being shot down, he said, nevertheless, the United States of necessity respond to this attack. What would be proportionate, in your view?

[Mick Mulvaney]

Yeah, something minor. A lot of it depends, Joe, on where they really are with the negotiations. If Trump thinks, like, thinks that they are really close to getting a deal, and I'm not just talking about saying that we are, but if he's actually getting the feedback that there's a close to getting a deal, I think you might see a relatively minor sort of response. If, however, there really isn't anything happening on, happening now in discussions and we sort of reach this stasis, this status quo where Iran is waiting for Trump to give in and Trump is waiting for Iran to give in, by the way, I think they're both mistaken about how long the other side can hold out. Trump thinks they're going to give up economically, they aren't. They think he's going to give up politically because of the midterms. He's not. So something has to change that balance. So if they're not close at the table right now, then I think you might see a larger retaliation. So let's watch for the scope. And again, actions speaking louder than words. That'll tell us a lot about where they were, the discussions.

[Kelly]

You raised the notion, Mick, of the President giving in. And as we consider whether or not he'll give in on domestic issues, like for example, the anti Weaponization fund that at least the DOJ had to renounce last week in order to get reconciliation through the Senate, do you expect he's going to have to give in on the Director of National Intelligence and tap someone else for that on a permanent basis other than Bill Pulte, knowing that Bill Pulte's tapping is what could lead FISA section 702 to going dark after the deadline on Friday?

[Mick Mulvaney]

Yeah. And I can't remember who, what senator it was, was talking last week when Pulte was named to the acting position, that there's actually statutory requirements now as to the qualifications for the, for the permanent director. Again, acting is different than permanent. My guess is that, that Pulte can't be the permanent odni, the Office Director of National Intelligence, just because, number one, I'm not sure he meets the statute of requirements. Number two, the atmosphere right now in Washington towards that particular position is fairly poisonous. So I'm not sure Trump wanted him permanently anyway, but if he did, there's plenty of good other people out there within his organization that could, that could fill that particular role. So. Yeah, but I don't think Pulte gets the gig permanently.

[Joe]

You were ahead of your time, Mick Mulvaney, as acting chief of staff, you helped to create the path for a lot of members of the Cabinet here. So what does the President do? Speaker Mike Johnson was at the White House reportedly earlier today to try to talk this out. Does the President name a permanent pick that that might help lawmakers accept the idea of an acting bill Pulte?

[Mick Mulvaney]

It does. I think it absolutely does. It also helps with fisa, the FISA renewal, which is really what this is about. Right. I mean, the President, I don't think, yes. Really doesn't get up in the middle of the day asking himself, you know, who's going to be odni. But the Pfizer thing is a big deal, is hearing about that from Congress a lot more that he's hearing about, you know, whether or not this person or that person is a good permanent odni. So, yeah, I do think that there's a lot of pressure on him to sort of compromise, give a name that the Hill is okay with, use that as a way to get FISA approved. I think FISA ultimately does get approved simply because it does have bipartisan support on the Hill. So I think that gets approved. But I do think the President's going to have to name a different ODNI director to get that job done.

[Kelly]

Well, I guess we'll see if it's able to be approved ahead of the Friday deadline. We're also waiting to see, Mick, if the House is going to be able to pass the budget reconciliation bill to fund ICE and CBP today. They've been dealing with a lot of attendance issues. I think it was 37 members of the House missed votes yesterday. It's obviously primary day in a number of states. Is that math too difficult for House leadership to risk it today?

[Mick Mulvaney]

Probably today, yeah. I mean, you know, I'M from South Carolina. I'm not there today, obviously, but we've got a primary that today there's a primary in Maine. There's folks, listen, if you're a sitting member of Congress and you've watched over the course of the last several years, this goes all the way back to Eric cantor losing in 2000. I think it was 12. What's the, you know, the common thread of people who lost their primaries unexpectedly was that they were in Washington on the day of the primary. I think Joe Crowley lost to AOC when he was in Washington as well. So you are going to be home for your primary day, whether or not you're a Democrat or Republican. To your point, Kelly? Yeah, it creates a math problem for the Republicans, but, but it also creates a math problem for Democrats. So it's a multivariable equation. You might know who of your members are going to show up or not show up, but you're not going to know who the other team is bringing onto the field. So it could be a while before they've got sort of confidence levels of who's going to show up on any given day.

[Joe]

House votes on reconciliation today make the speaker seems to think he's got the votes, but there has been some heartburn. Look, there's been some heartburn about this anti weaponization fund. Do you think this is dead? As Todd Blanche indicated, every time the president's asked, he seems to bring it back to life.

[Mick Mulvaney]

No, I don't think it's dead. Look, and I'm not going to rehash here January 6th. I have some very strong feelings about it, as you know, but I think the issue may have been more with how the money was going to be paid out than the money and who the president was going to put on this, this board to make these decisions. And I think there may be a compromise available here to get that done. They're not going to give it to him the way that he wanted it originally. Blanche, I think, look, if Todd Blanche goes back on that word now under said, he'll probably end up being impeached just because you can't, you can't, you can't tell the Senate XYZ and then immediately go back on your word. They would make the make the accusation you were lying to them under oath, which is a serious problem. So, no, I don't think they can go back to the fund the exact same way that it was. But there might be some tweaks that make it a little bit more palatable to everybody.

[Kelly]

Of course, might be tougher for Todd Blanche to get confirmed to be attorney general as the president officially nominated him yesterday. Mick, just quickly, you mentioned you're a South Carolina native. It is primary day. Do you have a call on how the gubernatorial race on the Republican side is likely to shake out?

[Mick Mulvaney]

No. It's absolutely fascinating. I've not seen a race like this in a long time where you've got five people all within four or five points of each other, which is fascinating. But the one thing we do know is this, is that Donald Trump endorsed the sitting lieutenant governor. She's doing okay, but she's not running away with it. In fact, there's a chance she doesn't finish in the top two. Only the top two will move on tonight after the, after the primary. So it's a rare occasion, Kelly, a rare occasion of Trump endorsing somebody who wasn't sort of really on the, on the, on the arc to winning anyway. This was a fairly deep sort of endorsement for him. She was, she was in, in the pack. So we'll see how she does tonight. There's a chance she comes out on top. There's also a chance she doesn't finish in the top two, which would be a stunning blow to the president.

[Kelly]

Yeah. And would two blows a pattern make after Randy Feenstra in Iowa, I guess we'll see. Mick Mulvaney, the former acting White House chief of staff in the first Trump administration and former congressman from South Carolina. Thanks for being here on Bloomberg.

[Joe]

Stay with us on Balance of Power. We'll have much more coming up after this.

[Mick Mulvaney]

At Duke Energy, we deliver reliable energy that powers lives, grows businesses and transforms communities. That's why we're making smart investments to add up to 14 gigawatts of new

[Joe]

capacity over the next five years.

[Mick Mulvaney]

That's enough to power 10.5 million more homes. Putting customers first, advancing American progress, powering the next generation. Learn more at duke-energy.com poweringamerica.

[Bloomberg Announcer]

You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch us live weekdays at noon and 5pm Eastern on Apple CarPlay and Android Aut Bloomberg Business app. You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station. Just say Alexa, play Bloomberg 1130.

[Joe]

We're going to get to our panel in just a moment. Rick Davis and Jeannie Shan Zaino are hanging in there. A bit later with us as we bring Becca Wasser back into our conversation. She leads our defense analysis and the defense team at Bloomberg Economics and has been instrumental in our coverage here of what's happening in Iran. Pretty remarkable, Kelly, to consider that this helicopter was shot down and we don't know if it was intentional.

[Becca Wasser]

Yeah.

[Kelly]

Axios reporting, citing a U.S. official that intentional or not is still unknown here. Becca. So how does that calibrate the, the response the US Might select from the available options. What are those available options and where, where do they rank from incredibly escalatory to not So I mean, as far

[Becca Wasser]

as things go, it's a political decision right now how to strike back and how intense to strike back. And my read is that President Trump still wants to reach some type of deal, some type of negotiation with Iran and is going to probably calibrate the response. That said, as you've noted, we don't have all the information. So I think what we are most likely to see is, is a measured response in the way that we have for the reported self defense strikes that U.S. central Command has been carrying out on Iran. Those have been hits on clear military targets. So various things like radar systems and communications nodes. Obviously there are more escalatory options. There's attacks on energy infrastructure. There's the most escalatory option which would be attacks on leadership. But I don't think we're quite there even without having all the information. Axios reporting that it was most likely a drone that crashed into and shot down this Apache. And you know, it probably was something that could have been either an accident, although frankly it's very hard to envision in the airspace that it would be an accident given sort of the size and scope. But you know, there's also a chance that it was purposeful. But there's a bigger question about who ordered this. Right now Iran's military is incredibly decentralized. Trump himself has noted that there are some communications issues within leadership and that also goes down to the very, very lowest levels of the military. So there could be, this could essentially be a rogue actor at play.

[Joe]

Fascinating. Just to get back to what you said, and I think you just answered this, if in fact it was a drone that took down the helicopter, as Axios reports, and we're allowing for that to be unintentional, does that indicate how much stuff Iran is throwing into the air at one time that we could inadvertently be crashing into it?

[Becca Wasser]

I mean that could be the case. You don't know exactly the flight patterns. And some drones are essentially pre programmed, programmed to do a specific flight pattern. But we've also seen in places like Russia's invasion of Ukraine the way that drones could be scoping out an area. And you know if they identify a target, can veer toward that target in a kamikaze style and try and bring it down. So it could be technology that's more akin to that right now. We just don't know and we don't have the most the available information.

[Joe]

Well, really something, Becca, thank you so much. Becca Wasser from Bloomberg Economics as we assemble our political panel to talk about this and more. Bloomberg Politics contributors Jeannie Shannon Zaino and Rick Davis are with us. Jeannie, our Democratic analyst and Democracy visiting fellow at Harvard Kennedy School's Ashe Center. Rick is a partner at Stone Corps Capital and our Republican strategist for our panel today. What are you thinking here, Jeannie, if this turns out to have been inadvertent somehow or a rogue actor sent a drone up into the sky? Donald Trump has been pretty clear that he's averse to resuming heavy military activity, that going back to war with Iran is something he would prefer to avoid. Constantly talking about a peace deal that could be only days away. Is that enough if this was inadvertent or chalked up to a rogue actor that the president can move on and continue talks?

[Jeannie Shan Zaino]

Yeah, it's hard to imagine that he does not retaliate in some fashion. And we know the US Military has a list of targets. And since this seems to have been the result of a drone hit, potentially they hit some of those drone and missile launch sites near the Strait of Hormuz. And that would be sort of a proportional response to avoid the escalation. You know, one thing that we should just mention is there have been some criticisms that during this sort of fake or so called cease fire that's not really a cease fire, Iran has been able to use the time to increase its drone production, making all of this much more dangerous, as we've seen today for the US Military. Which then raises the specter after this, does Donald Trump make a decision about finishing this thing or retreating? Because this middle ground that we're on now, a cease fire, that's not a cease fire. Talks that don't seem to be going very far is potentially just endangering the US Military, the United States and the world economy. So I think that's some of the pressure the president is going to find himself on trying to walk this line as he's been doing for the last couple months.

[Kelly]

Well, so it raises the question as to whether or not the president can win here, Rick, not just in the sense of winning the war, but in terms of decision making something like this response on the one hand I would imagine you have the likes of Senator Lindsey Graham who want to see a strong response. On the other, if you respond too strongly, you may open up even more room for your opponents to this war, saying that this is not a cease fire, that the War Powers act needs to be held here, that he needs to come to Congress. And I just wonder how you think he calibrates his decisions around perception or whether he does at all.

[Rick Davis]

Yeah, there's really nothing new here. I mean, there's a host of hawkish senators who've been suggesting that the only way to actually bring Iran to a serious negotiation around their nuclear material is to hit them hard and hit them often. And at only that time would the despotic regime that's currently in place be willing to cry uncle and sign a deal. And so they're out there with that kind of heat. And so this just exasperates it. Right? This gives them fuel for their fire. And at the same time, the president is juggling the need to open up the Strait of Hormuz and lower those gas prices so that he can survive a little bit in the midterms on a cost of living issue that's dogged him since he was elected. And in the meantime, you know, there is a legitimate negotiation evidently going on, and he's trying to cut the best deal he can to win. Look, at the end of the day, he's going to define a win in whatever way he thinks. You know, he can actually get an agreement from Iran, and then it's up to everybody else to define whether or not they agree with that. And we are a long way from knowing where all that's going to shut down. I mean, the one thing that everyone uniformly says is the negotiation that is vexing. Donald Trump right now is standard operating procedure for every president in the last 50 years. And the one thing Iran may know how to do is negotiate. They may not know how to fight a war or run a country, but they've got this part down.

[Joe]

Jeanne, we've got four states voting in primary elections today, and we're always told that people don't vote on geopolitics, realizing it's geopolitics that have created a more severe affordability issue for a lot of voters. Is it different this time and that Republicans might feel the weight of voters decisions based on the trajectory of this war?

[Jeannie Shan Zaino]

Yeah, I mean, Joe, you're exactly right. We don't usually see foreign issues, foreign entanglements, unless we have troops on the ground really playing into certainly primaries or even general elections. But in this case, we do see a direct connection in the minds of many people who are voting in these primaries that they are paying the price for this war of choice by the president. And so they are seeing it in gas prices, grocery prices and the rest. And that's why, as we look to the big race today in Maine and Graham Platner, you hear him up in Bar harbor the other day talking about, as he has been consistently about the billionaires, about the affordability crisis, about what these foreign entanglements for him as a veteran, somebody who served many tours, what these foreign entanglements that he says Susan Collins, which she did, voted for, have meant for the people of Maine. So I think it is playing a bigger role than it might otherwise because of the impact on affordability.

[Kelly]

Well, as you mentioned, the incumbent, Senator Susan Collins of Maine, she obviously looks likely to go up against Graham Platner, assuming that he is able to win the Democratic primary in that state today. That is still the assumption, despite what is frankly a laundry list now of scandals that have plagued him, including former Reddit posts that he made years ago in the aftermath of his deployments that have now already worked their way into ads being put out by a Collins backed group. Let's just have a taste here of what's already circulating on the airwave. Graham Platner blamed women for getting raped.

[Becca Wasser]

Who says something like that?

[Brooke Sutherland]

Platner said women should take some responsibility for themselves. He's an awful person.

[Kelly]

Graham Platner is dangerous.

[Brooke Sutherland]

I would never vote for Graham Platner.

[Kelly]

And we should note, Rick, that Platner has apologized regarding his former Reddit post. He said, quote, for those of you who have read these things and been offended, I have read these, these, have read these things and seen someone that you don't recognize, I am deeply sorry. He says, when I got back From Afghanistan in 2011, I stayed in the army for another year. I got out in 2012. Some of the worst comments I made, the things that I think are least defensible, that I wouldn't even try to defend, come from that time. So he says he's not going to try to defend them, but is he going to be able to defend himself against this and the other allegations around his behavior in romantic relationships as he advances toward the general election?

[Rick Davis]

Yeah, this attack on his personal characteristics is really tough. These are all women Mainers, folks who know Platner. And that is a hard thing to dodge. That's not some historical thing that, you know, he did a long time ago and has learned his lesson. These are women who are currently familiar with him and really have waged a heavy indictment on his character. I mean, his own political director authored a Washington Post editorial op ed today, really just hammering him. I mean, this is not someone who he has recovered from over the years, and this is someone who helped actually run his campaign and left it and did a blistering attack on him in print. So I don't think this is something he can escape with a throwaway line. But it's going to be a really tough year for Republicans. And Maine is a classic example, you know, where, you know, even though Susan Collins is a tried and True Mainer with 40 years of experience in the Senate and a powerful chairman of the arm of the Appropriations Committee, she's going to have trouble because the current is flowing against Republicans in the entire country. And nowhere is this being seen the most than in the consequential race here in Maine. We'll know whether or not the Senate's going Democratic or not if Susan Collins wins or loses, you know, early in the day on in first Tuesday in November.

[Kelly]

Hmm. Well, that underscores how Maine is a must win seat for Democrats if they want to flip the Senate. If you need four, Maine very likely has to be in that because if you can't win Maine, can you get Alaska or Ohio?

[Joe]

Exactly.

[Kelly]

Or Iowa, perhaps? Rick Davis and Jeannie Shan Zaino, Bloomberg Politics contributors, both of them. Thank you so much for joining us.

[Joe]

Stay with us. On Balance of Power. We'll have much more coming up after this.

[Microsoft Announcer]

And pause really quick. Wanted to also mention that not Only is Windows 11 Pro designed to help unlock operational efficiency and build long term advantage for your business, it can seriously level up your team's productivity. And since I know you all love stats, guess what? I got Microsoft commissioned stats. Compared to Windows 10 PCs, Windows 11 Pro users reported on average 50% faster workflows and collaboration, 42% faster completion of demanding workloads, and on average 61% longer battery life. Windows 11 Pro chip to Cloud security is designed to help employees stay protected and uninterrupted at the office, at home, the coffee shop, wherever they work. Speaking of uninterrupted, you IT managers are going to love this one. The Microsoft Commission survey also reported Windows 11 Pro PCs having a 62% drop in security incidents compared to Windows 10 PCs. Because Windows means business upgrade to Windows 11 Pro at windows means business.com

[Bloomberg Announcer]

youm're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch us live weekdays at noon and 5pm Eastern on Apple Car Play and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business app. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts or watch us live on YouTube.

[Joe]

Interesting session here as we keep our eyes on voting that's taking place in a number of states around the country. Yes, including Maine. They're not the only ones. We've got four states in play today, but yeah, that's the big one. This Senate race and Democrats hopes and dreams of flipping the Senate seat in Maine are critical to their hopes of taking control of the Senate. If they can't pull this off and actually beat Susan Collins, many would argue the rest of the map doesn't matter. They've got to get this one in the bag. And of course, it's now beyond a primary race on the Democratic side. Well, I guess on either side after the governor dropped out of this thing. Janet Mills, by the way, still on the ballot, would like you to remember that, that as Graham Platner cruises to what appears to be a coronation here for the Democrats in Maine, knowing that he has been dealing, of course, with a great deal of controversy that has been in some cases aired out on this program. We haven't gone too deep into this, but you've heard about the text, you heard about the New York Times report about his relationship with a number of women who have come forward. And by the way, they've cooked that into an ad that's already running up there. And it's going to be a very expensive and probably a very negative race between these two as the posts from Reddit come back around, the interviews with some of these women who have actually sat in front of cameras. And you've got a number of folks on the Democratic side, beginning with Ro Khanna, who went all the way up there. The congressman from California has got presidential ambitions to say he believes in redemption. This is being compared to the Senate race in Texas, though, with Ken Paxton, of course, concerning a lot of Republicans about whether he has the stuff or too much baggage to be elected in a general contest. We're going to air out both of these races, first with Brooke Sutherland, who's joining us from Boston, and then with Cliff Young from Ipsos. He's got new numbers on the Texas race. Brooke is our bureau chief in our great, great Boston bureau, my old hometown with the best view of Beacon Hill anywhere in Boston. Brooke, it's great to see you. Welcome back to Balance of Power. How are you looking at this race if not one today that doesn't matter so much? Can Janet Mills make a dent at the last minute.

[Brooke Sutherland]

You know, I think it does matter a lot. And I think, you know, for Democrats, what they're really looking for is voter turnout and what that margin of victory is for Graham Plattner. He is very likely to cruise to the Democratic nomination, but that margin is really going to matter. The latest poll that we have showed Platner with 75% support and Mills at 10%. That was after Mills had suspended her campaign, but before the recent reports about the text messages with other women during his marriage and his relationships with some of his ex girlfriends. And so I think if Mills can substantially close that gap and you see a really strong showing for her, that's going to be a signal to national Democrats that they might have a problem here. And they're start. They're already worried about their chances, you know, in terms of being able to continue to gain momentum in Maine and get those four seats that they need to get a majority in the midterms. But I think if you see a really tight margin here, that's going to raise those concerns even more.

[Joe]

Pretty remarkable timing to see yesterday the op ed in the Washington post from Genevieve McDonald, former Maine State Rep, the former political director for Graham Platner's Senate campaign. The headline is, I'm sure you saw this, Brooke. I know firsthand why Graham Platner should not be a US Senator. Do stories like these or do columns like these matter at this point or the people of Maine feel like they, they know what they need to know about Graham Platner.

[Brooke Sutherland]

Our Boston money and power reporter, Greg Ryan is actually on the ground today in Maine talking to a bunch of voters. And the overwhelming sentiment that he has gotten back from these Democratic voters is that they're not happy about, you know, the steady drip of scandal that surrounded Graham Platner, but they're willing to hold their nose and vote for him because it's so important to them to topple Susan Collins, who's seeking a sixth term, and, you know, get those Democrats on the board in this push to retake the Senate in the midterms. And so I think you're seeing, you know, nobody's happy about this, but I think you're seeing a number of people willing to look past it and focus on his message. And he is finding a lot of support with a campaign that's focused on criticism of billionaires and the political establishment. He's called for universal health care, higher taxes on the rich, and he's really tapping into that voter anger around rising costs and people in Washington who don't necessarily seem to be making it better. And so I think you do see people willing to sort of put his personal past in one corner and really focus on those messages, changes that he's talking about.

[Joe]

Really fascinating. It's great to talk to you, Brooke. We appreciate this. Are we going to get a late call tonight before you leave us, or do we expect this to be at a decent hour?

[Brooke Sutherland]

I think it depends on what the margin of victory is. And so Maine does have ranked votes vote. Ranked choice voting. But that will come into play if somebody fails to get more than 50%. And I think if we see that, it's a disastrous night for Graham Platner.

[Joe]

Wow. All right, so, you know, come on tomorrow. I want to talk this out with you. This is fascinating, Brooke, thank you. With us live from Boston, Brook Sutherland, our bureau chief in the great town, as we add the voice of Cliff Young, aforementioned from Ipsos, US Public Affairs Chair. He's also visiting professor of political science at Texas A and M University's Bush School of Government and Public Service. And they're out with their first poll here on the state of Texas. And I want to seize on that Senate race that we've been discussing. Cliff, it's great to see you. Welcome.

[Cliff Young]

It's great to be here.

[Joe]

Texas Pulse poll. This thing looks cool. You guys did a great job and I congratulate you on it. You've got a three point lead for James Talrico right now, which is fascinating in a state like Texas. How do we rationalize this if not reflecting Ken Paxton, Paxton's own baggage?

[Cliff Young]

Yeah, it's. If you look at the poll, look at the data across the board, Texas is a red state.

[Joe]

Right.

[Cliff Young]

It has been a red state historically. Has been. It is. You look at the other races, both gubernatorial and some of the down ballot races, it's all red. But not this race specifically. And I think there's a twofold reason. On the one hand, you have cost of living. That's the number one issue. It is weighing down on Texans, like all Americans. But you also have a high quality candidate in Talarico. He's a good product. He resonates. And that's what we're seeing today in the poll.

[Joe]

Really interesting. Paxton's got time, but a lot of people know Ken Paxton. Right. Do either of these candidates need to invest in name recognition after the primaries that they went through?

[Cliff Young]

Yeah, so. So primaries are important. They raise name recognition, familiarity. But the first bit of the campaign will need to be reintroducing the bios, who they are what they've done, you know how they're sort of linked to Texas in an important way? Talarico has more of a ceiling. There's 50% of Texans that say they don't know much about him at all. That could be a good thing or a bad thing. It's a good thing because all you have to do is show your bio if you're Talarico. It could be a bad thing because Paxton and Republicans can fill that vacuum with negative points.

[Joe]

So they're both trying to identify each other. Right. And we keep hearing Paxton refer to him as a vegan and Tofu, Tao, Rico and the rest. But a lot of Texans became very familiar with Ken Paxton through his very public divorce and impeachment. Right. So a lot of his identification has already been put into the mold. Can he change perceptions in the months ahead?

[Cliff Young]

Well, the experience is that typically someone like Paxson, that's well known, that has baggage, it's very difficult to sort of shake that. Right. Really the strategy is to paint the other one as being problematic, to paint Talarico as being weird, let's say different.

[Joe]

Yes.

[Cliff Young]

A liberal, a progressive, these sort of, you know, these, these, these bad words. And that will be the, the specific strategy of the campaign, again, independent of the result. Talarico is a talent. He has a lot of interesting attributes, and that's why we see him up in the polls today.

[Joe]

Really interesting. This is, of course, following the redistricting in Texas, and you were asking voters about that as well. How is this going over the rewriting of maps?

[Cliff Young]

Yeah. You don't have a majority of Texans saying they like it, about 37% of which is wild.

[Joe]

Because they started a national trend.

[Cliff Young]

Yeah, exactly. And so it's really something that was done with consensus of the political class, which is primarily Republican, establishment Republican. There you do have a super majority percent of Republicans agreeing with redistricting. But overall, when you take into consideration Democrats and independents, they don't like it so much. And like everywhere else, there's. There's a bit of hold your nose. Maybe we have to do it for politics in the short term, but probably isn't good for democracy in the long term.

[Joe]

I have to check gas prices every day. I talk about the campaign. And they have been trending lower $4.16 today still, however, above $4 and they're paying 362 in Texas. Is cost of living the number one issue there?

[Cliff Young]

Like everywhere else, it's by far the number issue. It is affordability. Affordability. Affordability. Cost of living. I'm having problems making ends meet with the caveat that Texans feel better off than the average American. So the you know, Texans on average about about 45, 46% of 43 depending on the poll, say that basically they're on the right track. When you look at America in as a whole, only 20% of Americans say they're on the right track. So so Texans feel like they're relatively in a better place, but still making ends meet.

[Joe]

The Trump endorsement sure meant a lot. Ask John Cornyn. This was like a blowout for Ken Paxton after the president came into the fold very late in the game. What does his approval look like or disapproval in Texas?

[Cliff Young]

The president, the president's president's in a fairly good place where in the United States in General he's below 40%. That's the tipping point. We've talked about that a lot. Difficult to get things through. But in Texas specifically is at 46% approval rating. He is strong now. He's especially strong on the border. Texans give him that credit that do. But he's but he's weakest obviously on cost of living.

[Joe]

Really interesting as always with fresh numbers, new research on his brand new poll. Cliff Young, Texas A&M Fascinating read, Cliff. Thank you. As always, thanks for listening to the Balance of Power podcast. Make sure to subscribe if you haven't already at Apple, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts. And you can find us live every weekday from Washington D.C. at noontime [e-mail]

[Microsoft Announcer]

okay tech leaders, word on the street is security incidents are dropping way down with Windows 11 PCs built in. Security for the win upgrade to Windows 11 Pro at windows means business.com It's

[Joe]

10:01am On a Monday all at once. Your sales leader needs to know which deals are at risk. Your PM wants feature adoption by cohort and your CFO needs one last graph for the board. Now your data team has to say no to somebody. Hex changes that. Ask any data question in plain English and get an analyst grade response, all backed by your actual business context as defined by your data team. Start saying yes to more data questions at Hex AI.