In Conversation with Chris Krueger, Washington Research Group

PETER HAYNES: Welcome to episode 39 of our monthly TD Securities podcast on geopolitics with our guest, the honorable Frank McKenna. My name's Peter Haynes, and I'll be your host for today's episode, where we will pivot somewhat from our normal format to add a special guest to the podcast discussion. Joining us today is Chris Krueger, who is Washington Strategist for Cowen Washington Research Group, where he covers DC macro, fiscal, tax, and trade policy. I guess we can call it, now, the TD Cowen Washington Research Group, as all of us on this call now earn our paychecks from the same green machine following TD's acquisition of Cowen. Chris, welcome to TD, and tell us about the first two months of your time post-merger.

CHRIS KRUEGER: Well, thanks so much for the invitation to join you all. It's been fabulous, really has exceeded our already lofty expectations. And certainly no rest for the weary with the policy front. We went right from our health care conference in Boston to Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank, and now into indictment of former President Trump, and then into the debt ceiling. So there's been a lot to cover, but it's been really great teaming up with our new partners at TD Securities and TD Bank.

PETER HAYNES: Well, there's no shortage of topics to cover. Many of them resonate from the city that you make your home. That is Washington. And so we'll unpack some of those issues today and get Frank's perspective on some of these topics as well. So, before we get started, I need to do the standard disclaimer to remind our listeners that this TD Securities podcast is for informational purposes, and the views described in today's podcast are of the individuals and may or may not represent the view of TD Bank or its subsidiaries. And these views should not be relied upon as investment, tax, or other advice. So, Frank, I'm going to start with a question for you that I often ask you, and I never know where you're going to go with your answer. What are the top three topics on the minds of politicians and business leaders you've been speaking to recently?

FRANK MCKENNA: I put them in three different buckets. The first bucket, it's a kind of a big bucket. It's domestic concerns, just blocking and tackling issues-- corporate profits, inflation, interest rates, where they're going, where inflation is going, workers, getting access to workers, getting people back to work, supply chains, resiliency. And in the case of Canada, probably US politics writ large because it's very influential on a lot of things that take place in this country. And as Robin Williams once said, I feel sorry for you Canadians. It's like living on top of a biker bar. And sometimes we feel like that when we look across the border because, whether it's the Inflation Reduction Act or the policies of some of the candidates running in the primaries, we constantly have to be nimble and watch what's taking place across the border. So that's one big bucket. The second bucket is Ukraine-- wouldn't surprise you-- because Ukraine really has a dramatic impact on inflation and escalating world tensions between major powers. And then, thirdly, China, just because China is so huge and so influential. And again, it may not be politically correct, but it's a good way to put it. What the fat man in the canoe does really matters. And in this case, we've got one very large country that is a country that everybody is watching because of its disproportionate influence.

PETER HAYNES: Well, we're going to focus on the biker bar today. That will be the focus of our attention. But just before we get to that, Frank, I do want to ask you about one policy issue in Canada. What do you make of the federal workers strike, and when will that end?

FRANK MCKENNA: Well, I think it's going to end reasonably soon, actually. Number one, number two, sometimes these things are inevitable. There's often just a big gap between bid and ask. And in this case, we're in an inflationary environment on the one side. On the other side, government of Canada is trying to exercise a modicum of restraint. So you're bound to get a cleavage. And not only that, I have to tell you candidly, sometimes you have to play to the audience. In the case of the union leaders, they have some obligation to show their mettle to their workers. And the only way you can really do that is usually to take people out on strike. And it's unusual with federal public service, but all of the conditions were lined up for this to happen. I don't think there's a lot of heat in the strike. I've been in the middle of some pretty ferocious strikes where there's a lot of anger, a lot of heat. I don't sense that here. I think it's just two sides that are going through the motions, and we will end up with some kind of a negotiated settlement.

PETER HAYNES: Good to hear. And I'm glad to hear that you don't think this is going to be long term and more acrimonious than just the standard bluster that you get any time there's two sides that are negotiating. So, Chris, we're going to circle into the Beltway here. And as you're doing the rounds, as you're based in Washington, and you're speaking to institutional investors about issues in Washington, is everyone you speak to looking for a solution to the debt ceiling debate? And if yes, then what is that solution?

CHRIS KRUEGER: Yeah. I mean, maybe just piggybacking on Frank, the three big topics thus far-- number one, clearly debt ceiling. Number two, the regional bank crisis and the historic policy response to that. And then probably third would be the roll off of the pandemic programs given that the public health emergency ended on April 1. But the debt ceiling is first and foremost. We've got House action right around the corner. Really, the key variable remains the x-date. The x-date is when those extraordinary measures run off that have been employed since the US hit the debt ceiling in January to the tune of $31.4 trillion. At the end of the day, much like the crises in 2011, as well as the much smaller crises in 2013 and 2015, some type of kick-the-can type process is likely here. If you look at that Venn diagram of policies that could pass with 60 votes in the Senate, a simple majority in the House, and get a signature from President Biden, there's not a lot of low-hanging fruit. It's some type of process-driven compromise along with perhaps the $187 billion in unobligated COVID-19 funds, a clawback of that. The hope is that will be enough to raise the debt ceiling sometime into the first quarter of 2025, taking the issue off the table through the upcoming elections. That doesn't mean this isn't going to be a white-knuckle exercise. If the x-date is July 30, that bill probably gets signed on July 29.

PETER HAYNES: And a couple of follow-ons to that-- first of all, in terms of some of the options, there's been talk of using due process, which I think is Article 14 in the Constitution. There's been talk about a compromise with the bill that was put forward by the House Majority Leader, Republican Kevin McCarthy, last week. And then there's also this talk of prioritization, whereby only certain bills get paid in order to not default on the debt. Can you walk through those scenarios and the likelihood that any of them end up being that July 29 solution?

CHRIS KRUEGER: Yeah. Well, so they're really the two big, unilateral options that are more theoretical than practical. But to your broader framing of the question, the closer the x-date comes into a field of vision, the likelihood for one or both of these probably increases. We'll also probably get some questions on this topic to the Fed chair at his FOMC press conference. But what's known as the constitutional option-- so the 14th Amendment is one of the three big amendments that passed after the Civil War and after 1865. And the 14th Amendment essentially backstopped the Confederate war debt. And within the amendment's language, it says something to the effect of the full faith and credit of the United States shall never be in question. This came to light in 2011, in the summer of 2011. Former President Clinton recommended that then President Obama invoke the 14th Amendment, raise it unilaterally. At the time, then President Obama said he didn't want to compound an economic crisis with a constitutional crisis. Because as the thinking went would be that some lawmaker would file a lawsuit, would file litigation that the president exceeded his powers. We're seeing this with the college loan forgiveness and other issues. And the fear would be that, now, Treasury Secretary Yellen would begin issuing new Treasuries post-x-date and that those Treasuries issued post-x-date, they would trade at a discount because they would be subject to litigation risk, depending what the Supreme Court said. So, in the meantime, you would effectively have two tranches of Treasuries, which would just create all kinds of financial plumbing questions, repo questions, et cetera. So it does seem like it's probably one of those scenarios where it really almost creates more questions than answers. The second option also stems back to the summer of 2011. We know this because of the FOMC transcripts. And this is the idea of prioritization. The Treasury Department did whiteboard this in the summer of 2011. And the idea is you would essentially rework the computers so that you could make post-x-date interest on Treasuries. So this would be default, without a capital D-- although Secretary Yellen has said that this is just default by another name because, by definition, you're not making all of your payments. I think that there's also a real question on, yes, I mean, in theory, this probably works, but you're going to beta test the biggest cash window during market hours. And apparently, the Treasury computers, they're not quite on Lotus Notes, but it's not the most efficient, up-to-date software. But both of those options are out there, and the closer we get to the x-date, would expect them to feature more prominently in the headlines. But it is probably one of these issues where the medicine causes a lot of future problems.

PETER HAYNES: And so back to McCarthy and dealing with getting the votes in the House to put forward or to get his bill passed, is this just DOA and we can basically just ignore what we're hearing coming from McCarthy at this stage?

CHRIS KRUEGER: Well, I think the x-date is the ultimate forcing mechanism. X-date clarity is a bigger variable than House passage or failure. But the bill that House Republicans unveiled is called the Limit, Save, Grow Act. I mean, I think regardless, you have now the process moving forward. Attention is going to have to shift to the Senate and what they can pass. This always felt like a Senate-first action. But, I mean, the issue for McCarthy is why we saw 15 votes to be elected speaker. This is the ungovernable nature of the House, which is stuck between these 18 House Republicans, and districts Biden won in 2020, and at least as many members on the hard right slash Freedom Caucus. And for a lot of these more moderate House Republican members, this vote is largely a process vote to give the House more negotiating power in the broader discussions because Senate Majority Leader Schumer has already said that this bill just won't pass the Senate. But for the Freedom Caucus crowd, this bill is not a means to an end. It is the end, right? This is what they really believe, whether it's putting a cap on total discretionary spend from prepandemic levels, prohibiting Biden's college loan forgiveness program, repealing a lot of the clean energy tax incentives in the Inflation Reduction Act, energy permitting reform, et cetera. So it's the first real test for House leadership, trying to govern what is largely an ungovernable crowd with only a four-seat margin. But regardless, the process is moving forward, and the x-date will give us the ultimate end-game time frame.

PETER HAYNES: And so, Frank, I know we've had this conversation before. When I've asked you about the debt ceiling, your answer is always, it'll get solved no matter what because it has to get solved because there's no choice. But unfortunately, in this case, it may actually only be after there's some short-term damage done to the markets. I believe the US and Denmark are the only two democratic countries that have a formal hard-dollar limit on its debt. Frank, can you see any solution longer term to avoid these messy periods of political brinkmanship? And perhaps that's the constitutional approach. But what would you do if you were able to fix this problem?

FRANK MCKENNA: Well, I think, Chris, just gave an excellent primer on the subject, and I learned a lot just listening to him. I would say it's an anachronism in the US system. But like a lot of anachronisms, it's hard to remove. You need a broad degree of consensus, and I don't think that is there. There's no evidence in my view that it forces fiscal discipline. I haven't seen that that's worked very well. It's simply another drama point in the whole drama process. I believe that debts and deficits are real. I actually feel quite strongly about that, as you know, Peter. It's like gravity. Things that go up have to come down. But there are other mechanisms to deal with that, everything from elections to budgets, et cetera. So I just think this is always a false alarm going off. But having said that, I think you just have to read the tea leaves and what Chris has had to say. We've got a date coming up. I'm not sure the x-date is as solid. It always seems to be a bit of a sloppy little date where you can move money around a week or two here and there. But if we have an actual, solid x-date, that's good because that focuses and concentrates the mind. So we need that. I think that it is going to be dramatic. I think that the problem that we have-- first of all, it will get resolved. That will happen. But it's going to be dramatic because I think the political environment is perhaps the most daunting that we've had in dealing with this particular issue. Speaker McCarthy has a very, very narrow margin to work within this House, and he's given away a lot of authority in order to get the speakership. And the forces that are arrayed are quite ideological. And so it's going to be difficult. I think the Senate and some of the people in the Senate that are quite deft at getting deals done will have to weigh in on this and see if they can't get something done here. But I think it's going to be quite a perilous journey that we're on here, and there could be some breakage on the way because I think we're going to get closer to the cliff edge this time than perhaps we have in the past.

PETER HAYNES: Hey, Chris, this is good for job security, eh? Like, these issues just keep coming up, and they keep you busy there. So let's just pivot to former President Trump's legal woes. Frank and I have joked frequently on these podcasts that Trump could be the president from jail, but he wouldn't be able to vote for himself. So, despite his legal woes, an NBC News poll released this weekend showed 70% of Republican voters still stand behind Trump. Are you surprised at this level of support, and will it impact in any way the likelihood that Florida Governor Ron DeSantis joins the race?

CHRIS KRUEGER: I always remind folks when discussing electoral politics how unbelievably closely divided the US is, with the 2020 presidential election decided by just under 43,000 votes through a combination of three states-- in Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin. And amazingly, the margin got even closer in 2022. Just under 12,000 votes among five congressional districts flipped the House. So, at the end of the day, this is probably going to be another very close election. Both President Biden and former President Trump, in our estimation, are the prohibitive front runners. President Biden and Trump in a rematch, that would be the first rematch since Dwight Eisenhower and Adlai Stevenson went two rounds in 1952 and 1956. Florida Governor DeSantis was in Washington the other week, looking to get some support, particularly among the Florida delegation. And while he was here, a number of members of the US House from the state of Florida endorsed Trump. Trump is approaching 50 congressional Republican endorsements. DeSantis has three at last count. Post-indictment, really, there has been a circle-the-wagons type effect with Trump. And the first debates are scheduled for August, so there is still some time here. But right now, it certainly looks like a Biden-Trump rematch.

PETER HAYNES: Well, I know that DeSantis, his team has been spending some time in Asia. And another candidate that may enter the Republican presidential nomination has also been spending time in Asia of late, although under the auspices of the state that he is governor. And that is Glenn Youngkin from Virginia. He's a former Carlyle executive. And in a recent column by the founding editor of Politico, John Harris, the author argued that in winning Virginia, Youngkin proved he could harness the coalition of voters that support Trump without attracting the attention and ire of Trump himself and that, as a centrist, Youngkin can offer something different than DeSantis and Trump, and that is potentially an end to the politics of, quote, "conflict and bombast." Frank, I'm curious, did you get to know Youngkin at all while you were involved there on the board of Carlyle? And is now the right time for Youngkin to enter the race?

FRANK MCKENNA: Well, quite a bit to unpack there. First of all, I do not recall meeting him. We only overlapped for a few months. When he was coming in, I was heading out to become the ambassador. My relationship was always very close with David Rubenstein during that period of time. But Glenn Youngkin, I think, arrived at the M&A desk, so I didn't get to know him. I've been watching him for some time now. There's a lot to like there in terms of his pedigree. He beat a pretty good friend of mine, Terry McAuliffe, for the governorship in that state. And Terry was a popular guy, as good a politician as you can get. He defeated him quite handily-- well, not handily. But he defeated him. And Youngkin's got-- he's got a strong record of accomplishment. He became an engineer, went to Rice, played basketball for four years, which is always good on your resume. He's had 25 years at Carlyle. Before that, he worked at Credit Suisse and McKinsey. So he's got a really, really strong business background. Harvard MBA. So he's got all of the royal jelly, I would say, that you would need. He's been quite clever, and watching him, a lot of the characteristics which Republicans are looking for, but without the bellicosity of Trump, the outrageousness of Trump, if I can use that value-loaded term. He doesn't do that. But he's really poking at a lot of issues around education and in other areas-- in many cases, dog whistling to an even more conservative base of the Republican Party. He's been very, I would say-- not quite-- but extraordinarily balanced in not being critical of Trump, but not being excessively supportive either. He's trying to toe the same line as Nikki Haley, I think, in not turning out voters who are strongly Trump voters. And then he's fairly nuanced on the issues. He's provax, but he's antimask, for example. He's anti-abortion, of course, but not under all circumstances-- so much more moderate in his inclinations and probably in a general election would be much more moderate than he would be in a primary. But having said all of that, no, I don't think he'll be a candidate. I think it's too early for him. He's got to prove his chops as governor. He needs to take some time to deal with issues. If he can win that state again, which is a pretty Democratic state, he'll have demonstrated his electability. And he needs to get out there and get more experience. He is overseas now, which is good, but he needs to pick up more foreign experience and just be better known around the country than he is right now. And the other thing, just remember this, the guns haven't been turned on him yet. DeSantis-- look, we could have ordained him six weeks or two months ago. I mean, he was ready for the throne. And then Trump turned the guns on him and proceeded to really take some water on. And once DeSantis was exposed more to the national media, and all kinds of issues started to surface around him-- I'm not counting him out. He's obviously the prohibitive challenger. But, boy, did he ever get diminished in a hurry. In the meantime, Trump, he strides around that throne. It doesn't matter what gets thrown at him. Nothing sticks. I don't think the New York case, by the way, is the strongest against him. There will be other cases coming. The cumulative effect of a number of indictments, or charges, or allegations, or lawsuits might be enough to dissuade a lot of reasonable Republicans from hitching their wagon to the star, but it sure won't turn off hardcore Trump supporters. He's going to have the most energized part of the Republican base going into the primaries. And right now, just following in what Chris says, it's hard to see who's going to beat him. There may be people out there. Nikki Haley's credible. Youngkin's credible. He's not in yet. I'd say that you've got people like Vice President Pence. A lot of names, a lot of interesting names. But right now, it's Trump. And he has a way of diminishing opponents and dispatching them very, very quickly.

PETER HAYNES: Well, Chris, there's an argument to be made that, as Frank just talked about, the New York District Attorney Alvin Briggs' Al Capone-like case against Trump might end up being his running mate as he moves forward in looking for the Republican nomination. Now, that said, he does have other potential criminal indictments that are pending against him. Can you provide us an update, Chris, on those issues and potential timing in which we might hear about some of those other cases that might be a little bit stronger than the one that came in New York?

CHRIS KRUEGER: Yeah. I mean, candidly, was pretty surprised that Bragg indicted the former president. But the Rubicon has now been passed, as it were. So the bar for future prosecutions, maybe other prosecutors will feel more liberty to move forward. But regardless, the New York case in theory goes to trial in January of 2024. That's when Republicans in Iowa will be caucusing, with New Hampshire right around the corner. If you back out from November 24 trial dates-- and one presumes that you would want the trial finished before the end of the election-- the two big cases that are likely to get some type of clarity in the next, probably, six to eight weeks-- because if you back out the trial date from November, those would be the Georgia case, with the Fulton County district attorney looking at the state certification process around the 2020 vote in Georgia, the phone call with the secretary of state, the approximately 12,000 ballots, et cetera. And then the other case is with the special counsel, and that's twofold. That's both Trump's role with January 6 and then, also, the so-called secret documents at Mar-a-Lago. Has that case been muddied with President Biden's documents, with former Vice President Pence's documents? Sure, but would expect clarity on both cases-- call it by June. The Georgia case, in particular, being the one that those around Trump have always been the most concerned with.

PETER HAYNES: And so, as we move forward, are you of the view, Chris, that regardless of what we might find in Georgia or with the special counsel, that enough of the Republican base will stay with Trump through this process to get him the nomination?

CHRIS KRUEGER: I think that's right. I mean, I think, though, for a lot of House and Senate Republicans, particularly those in districts Biden won or in swing states, I don't see how the indictments get Trump any new votes.

[LAUGHTER] To Frank's point, I mean, yes, absolutely. It's going to be very popular and bringing in the hardcore Trump faithful. But if you're a swing voter in Detroit, or a swing voter in Scottsdale, or a swing voter in Milwaukee, I just don't think that that is-- whereas a lot of those House and Senate Republicans would much rather be running a campaign on inflation, or crime, or other issues, when, in reality, the main issue for Trump, I suspect, is going to be playing his grievance-type politics, with the indictments front and center.

PETER HAYNES: OK. So, Frank, let's switch to the other side of the aisle. It's well known that it's all but impossible to beat an elected president at a primary, and I believe that has only happened once, in 1852, to a Democratic president, Franklin Pierce, who had some issues around the issue of slavery. As of today, only Marianne Williamson, a self-help author and spiritual advisor to Oprah Winfrey, has entered the race for the 2024 Democratic leadership. And with due respect, she has to be considered a long shot. Do you think there is any chance of a credible competitor to President Biden's Democratic leadership will emerge? And if so, then please name names.

FRANK MCKENNA: No, not if you put the adjective "credible" on that. I don't think there will be. Kennedy looks as if he's going to be running, but he won't even get his family's support. I think there could be other people interested in attracting some attention, but no, I don't think there'll be a credible challenger.

PETER HAYNES: And so what's the process, Frank? Do they still have to go through the leadership nomination at the convention even if the candidates are not credible?

FRANK MCKENNA: Well, they would want to have a convention. Chris, tell us what you think the process would be.

CHRIS KRUEGER: Yeah. Well, it's pretty interesting because the Democratic National Committee under Biden's guidance has really scrambled the dates and the states. The Iowa caucuses had always gone first, but now South Carolina on the Democratic side is supposed to go first, Georgia and Michigan also pulling those states forward. There had been a lot of criticism within the Democratic Party that Iowa and New Hampshire are going first, to states that really lack racial diversity, both rural states-- and so really putting states that were better representative, candidly, of not just the country, but also the Democratic Party further up front. It does sound like there will not be any debates within the Democratic nominating process, so depending if and when those states go. But very, very, very unlikely that any credible challengers-- and that was really also underscored by a massive Democratic outperformance in the midterms. The age issue is the primary issue in polling, et cetera. But for Biden and those around him, there's also a belief that Biden is the best Democrat suited to defeat Trump and that there's not an obvious number two who would just take the nomination by acclamation. And so a big Democratic fight for the presidency also would only underscore the first and primary issue, which is keeping Trump out of the White House for a second time.

PETER HAYNES: And you're confident slash 100% confident that Biden will enter the race again or put his name forward?

CHRIS KRUEGER: Well, depending on when this podcast goes live-- I mean, he's supposed to announce on April 25 with a short video, so--

PETER HAYNES: OK, well, you're right. That will probably be in our podcast out. So one question that we have as Canadians-- I'm sure other countries feel the same way-- is that if somehow President Trump became president for the second time, is there any reason to believe that he will act any differently towards his allies, such as Canada and other countries like it, than he did on the first go around in the Oval Office? Or are we likely to live through another four years of his grievance tour, unpredictability, and then, essentially, market-related volatility?

CHRIS KRUEGER: You know, NAFTA was replaced by USMCA, the 232 steel and aluminum tariffs in the rearview. I think there would be a real question, though, as to a Trump administration's view on NATO in particular with-- if you recall, in the 2020 campaign, Trump's second term, a lot of views on foreign policy, specifically NATO, China would clearly be a big issue, if you recall the final days of the 2020 campaign, calling on things like massive monetary reparations from China due to the pandemic and others. So, no, I think volatility would certainly be the coin of the realm.

PETER HAYNES: That's disappointing. I was hoping that I'd get a different answer, knowing that I wasn't going to there. Frank, we're going to end up with Trump versus Biden. It seems almost inevitable. And either way, we will have a president that will be well into his 80s while holding the most important political seat in the world, and especially at such an interesting time, with developments in China and Ukraine. When will we see US leaders emerge that are younger and perhaps a little closer in age to the average voter?

FRANK MCKENNA: Well, there will be an inevitable turning of the tide. There always is. And remember, it's not just Biden. Trump is an old man too. He doesn't get categorized the same way, but he's almost as old and, in many ways, less fit than Biden. But he projects energy and a demeanor, swagger that perhaps Biden doesn't. So we'd have two old men going at it. But look, I'm not going to be critical of older people. There's a lot of merit. I mean, the world is changing now. Life expectancy is increasing, I think, something like three months every year. It's increased 20 years just in the last 20 or 30 years alone. Every actuary would tell you that life expectancy is increasing. And people are healthier longer. I served on a board at one stage with five people who were all octogenarians, and I can tell you they were the five best directors on the board, all of them multibillionaires running large corporations. We had a mayor in Toronto who was 100 years old, Hazel McCallion, and she was sharp as a weapon. You get leaders around the world-- it could be in Israel, or it could be Mandela in South Africa, or Chinese leaders-- where having a considerable amount of age is seen as an advantage. So I wouldn't be quick to dismiss it. I think it's more one of capacity. It's not the age, per se, but do you seem to have all of your capabilities and capacity. It's also a question of who you have around you. I think it's important that you would have a very strong vice presidential candidate, very strong staff. Ronald Reagan, he was old, I guess, by the standards we're talking about as well, but he had good staff, and he was well respected. And you'll recall in that famous debate when he quickly cut that issue off by saying, I'm not going to make your age an issue. So I think that this will only become an issue if one of the candidates stumbles, shows forgetfulness, or starts making mistakes that make people think that the age is a problem. But otherwise, I think that we'll go on. But we will inevitably turn to younger people. It's a natural way for the pendulum to swing. In Canada, we saw the country turning towards Trudeau. Found him young and exciting. We've seen this happening around the world, where new youthful leaders come along. When I ran to become premier, I was against a very experienced person-- 17 years, actually, in the premiership. And we were in a debate once, and he said something to the effect, I'm extremely experienced, and my opponent-- that was me-- has none. And somebody in the audience yelled and said, I think we would prefer the guy with no experience, if you don't mind. And it turned out that the public did. Basically, they were saying one guy's got a lot of experience, but it's not good experience. We prefer the guy that doesn't have any. So it'll be different horses for different courses. And there will be times when the flavor of the day will be young, and dynamic, and inexperienced, even, and there will be other times when people want somebody who's older, maybe even sager, but with lots of experience. We had the good fortune in Canada-- and I'll say it as a partisan-- of having Jean Chretien as our prime minister. He had served for, I don't know, 35 or 40 years in parliament. He'd been in just about every portfolio in government. And on the big issues of the day, he had a sageness, a wisdom, a serenity almost about him that was very hard to find anywhere else. And he just made Canadians feel pretty comfortable that he had their back, that he'd lived this long, experienced life, and that he knew what he was talking about.

PETER HAYNES: Well, here's a text I got, Frank, just to your point there, from my 22-year-old son last Friday at noon. His quote was, "Trump is smart. He went on that Nelk podcast, and they have, like, 5 million views in 12 hours, mostly all election-aged people." And Nelk is one of those podcast people or Twitter people that the young folks all pay attention to. So you can just imagine that plays right into that voting segment of the US voting base. So let's just finish up here. I've got a provocative question for each of you. And I'm going to start with Chris. Same question for both of you-- if you could name one person that would make a great president of the United States that we have not yet discussed in this podcast, who would it be? I'll start with you, Chris.

CHRIS KRUEGER: It's a great question. I mean, I can think of a number of female business leaders and others. One, though, that really jumps out is retired Admiral William McRaven. He was the four-star Navy SEAL, actually. But he was head of Special Operations Command during the bin Laden raid, then a chancellor of the University of Texas system, gave one of the great commencement speeches I've ever seen. But I think someone who is not currently in politics would be fabulous. If you remember, in 1996, there was a big push to have General Colin Powell run, but in the soldier-statesman role-- also, I guess, just coming full circle since I mentioned Eisenhower at the beginning of the podcast. But I'm sure there are other folks, but Admiral McRaven certainly jumps to mind.

PETER HAYNES: OK. Frank, how can you counter that one?

FRANK MCKENNA: Yeah. Well, I can't because it's absolutely a great choice. And, by the way, Colin Powell was a friend of mine, and Alma. I love the guy to death. He was wonderful. I think he would have been a terrific president on so many fronts. I'm just kind of sad that it didn't happen. So I'm going to name one on each side, and they're both totally out of the blue and unlikely to be the president. But one is Jared Polis. He's the governor of Colorado. And I mention him because he is a Democrat winning in Colorado. It's an interesting state. Pretty well center of the country, geographically and ideologically. He's been elected twice, with a large majority. He's openly gay. He's Jewish, Princeton educated, very wealthy guy from technology companies that he's put together and sold, and a large philanthropist-- so just an interesting person who would represent a lot of different constituencies. I'd mention on the Republican side Chris Sununu. And I'm partial there because I served with his father, John Sununu, who's a smart guy who's a nuclear engineer. And Chris Sununu is an engineer, as well, out of MIT. Governor of New Hampshire. Popular. Centrist in his fourth term. It would just bring the Republican Party into a different part of the ideological spectrum. But I'm not sitting with bated breath on either one of them, but two interesting names.

CHRIS KRUEGER: Those are two really interesting names. And actually, maybe just to underscore that, too, two other governors-- Gretchen Whitmer from Michigan on the Democratic side, and then Brian Kemp, Republican governor in Georgia. And I mention those two. Also, not only did they just win re-election, but when you really come down to the presidential, for good or bad, it's really five states. And if you can bring one of those states to the four, that only helps. But it's just like last time, that there were only five states that flipped from Trump to Biden, and those states are Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. And those are probably the big five again.

PETER HAYNES: OK. Chris, well, as we finish up on this podcast, we have a tradition here. And we always finish up talking about baseball. So, last week, I was in Washington, and I watched the Washington Nationals host a game against their rival, the Baltimore Orioles. And I have to tell you, the Nats are one terrible baseball team. How can you possibly cheer for that team in Washington?

FRANK MCKENNA: [LAUGHS]

CHRIS KRUEGER: Well, as a Vermont native, it does feel great to be at TD. There is a homecoming almost associated with coming back. But as a Red Sox fan, I will say the beasts of the AL East are strong. First and foremost, Washington is a football town. So with what appears to be new ownership of the football team, that will probably be the big storyline come the fall.

PETER HAYNES: Yeah, because you're not cheering for that baseball team. I don't disagree with you.

CHRIS KRUEGER: [LAUGHS]

PETER HAYNES: OK. But on the other hand, Frank-- and yes, the Red Sox are formidable. We could be in a year where all five teams in the AL East are actually with winning records. We just finished up the weekend-- the Blue Jays, that is-- taking two of three in the Bronx, which is always a good thing. We're returning home, playing some pretty good baseball. Frank, I have to ask you, is there any aspect of this team-- the Blue Jays, that is-- that worries you? And what about those Rays? Is anyone ever going to be, other than Toronto, able to beat them? FRANK MCKENNA: Yeah. Let me say one or two things. First of all, I think we really upped the quality of this program by having Chris on. It's been really fun to be doing this with him. Secondly, I should tell you, as a New Brunswicker, we're deeply divided between the Red Sox and the Blue Jays. We would call ourself a Red Sox nation the same as you would in Vermont, probably. But I am a hardcore Jays fan. And I like the look of our team, Peter. They give me a bit of a heart palpitation every night because of their inconsistency. One night, we've got a lights-out stopper. Another night, we'll give up three or four runs. We've got a couple of starting aces, absolute studs, who get knocked out of the box almost in the first inning and then go out and pitch into the seventh or eighth inning. So I think once we get some consistency established, we're going to be a really, really good baseball team.

PETER HAYNES: Well, I'm with you. And the next time that we have a discussion, the three of us, maybe it should be at a Blue Jays-Red Sox game. That would be a great thing to do. So, Chris--

CHRIS KRUEGER: That'd be fun. Yeah. The green monster beckons.

PETER HAYNES: Yeah. Or alternatively, we'll host you in the head office town of the new bank that you work for here in Toronto. But at any rate, we really do appreciate you joining us as guests today. Frank, as always, thank you for your time. And I'm sure the three of us will be talking again down the road.

CHRIS KRUEGER: That was great. Thanks so much, guys.

[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.