World Reacts to Trump Win, Israel’s Gaza Aid Deadline Nears, Azerbaijan’s Climate Summit, and More

MCMAHON:
In the coming week, the world reacts to Donald Trump's presidential win, Israel faces a deadline to increase aid to Gaza, and the annual UN climate change conference, COP29, begins in Azerbaijan. It's November 7th, 2024 and time for The World Next Week. I'm Bob McMahon.

ROBBINS:
And I'm Carla Anne Robbins. Bob, let's start with, what else, the results of the U.S. election. This week, the world watched as Trump scored a really remarkable comeback to become the forty-seventh president of the United States. Foreign leaders and the rest of us have spent the year imagining the consequences for good and ill of a second Trump term. Remember the talk of the NATO summit this past July? It was all about, so-called, "Trump-proofing" the alliance, though I'm really not sure that's possible. So what's the global response so far now that Trump is on his way back to the White House?

MCMAHON:
Well, it's very interesting that there was an already scheduled European summit taking place in Budapest. And guess what-

ROBBINS:
A favorite place of Trump's.

MCMAHON:
Exactly. Well, guess what one of the primo topics at that summit was this morning, and that was the Trump election and what it means, and there were views across the spectrum there. It could be an interesting quirk that Hungary happens to be the rotating president of the EU at this point, given its leader Viktor Orbán is one of the strongest proponents of Donald Trump as well as one of the strongest go-betweens, shall we say, between Russia and European countries and famously and proudly illiberal democrat. So let's see whether he finds a way of translating, let's say EU cross-cutting cooperation with the United States in a way that other European leaders might have more difficulty with that could be fanciful. It's just an interesting thought exercise.

But this was a meeting of European Union leaders. It was NATO leaders, it was other European countries all getting together to talk about the news at hand. And there was other news buzzing too, which included the collapse of the German government, which was not insignificant, given the size and influence of Germany and broader questions about security, about Ukraine's security. One of the earliest persons to respond to the Trump victory was Ukrainian President Zelenskyy. And he not only ended up talking to the President-elect, but he had a long post on X where he congratulated Trump on his, "impressive election victory." And talked about the decisive leadership of Trump in the past and his commitment to "peace through strength" and so forth.

So I say that to say that one of the more interesting responses outside of Europe proper was from Russia, which was quite guarded, quite almost trollish in some of the comments. There were various members of the Russian elite who responded in interesting ways. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said he was not aware of any plans by President Putin to congratulate Trump in the election. He said the United States and Russia were unfriendly and that the United States is directly and indirectly involved in a war against Russia. And there were other comments along those lines from Russians. And so we'll have to see what happens.

As we speak about Russia, I also thought it would be worth just citing an interesting comment in a new interview published by Foreign Affairs with the historian Stephen Kotkin. He's a famous historian of Russia and he had an interesting take on Trump. At one point, he says in the interview, "It's extremely hard to predict because Trump is hard to predict even for himself. You could even have Ukraine getting into NATO under Trump, which was never going to happen under Biden. I'm not saying it's going to happen. I'm not saying there's even a high probability, nor am I saying it would be a good thing or a bad thing if it happened. I'm just saying the idea that Trump is some special gift to our adversaries doesn't wash with me, and he may surprise them on alliances and on rebuilding American power. It might well cut in multiple directions at once." End quote. So that's the school of Trump is his own foreign policy and we're in for an unpredictable ride, but not necessarily one that's good or bad, but just different.

There's all sorts of other takes too, obviously. We're going to talk about it a little bit later in this podcast, but climate is clearly an area where you're going to see U.S. policy change abruptly. Didn't see a lot of reaction to that respect, although you'll probably see it at the upcoming COP, which again we'll talk about later. But also Trump heard from Israeli leader, Benjamin Netanyahu, effusive response about his historic comeback. He heard from Asian allies reinforcing the Asian alliances that the U.S. has. And so the other one that will be interesting to keep on watching his comment from China where leaders there bracing for a wave of new tariffs from the United States. Trump has repeatedly maybe talked about tariffs more than any other issue, foreign or domestic. And that is-

ROBBINS:
The most beautiful word.

MCMAHON:
Beautiful tariffs.

ROBBINS:
Yeah.

MCMAHON:
Correct. So that could be seen as posturing ahead of making some a deal. Who knows? But Chinese are bracing for a new economic round of hard talk from the United States in a Trump administration. The only other thing I'll add is that whether you consider Ukraine or the Middle East, there's been a lot of messaging coming out from Trump and from aides about him wanting to bring an end to wars in Middle East and Ukraine, most experts you talk to will say, "Nice dream, easier said than done. You're not going to be able to just flip a switch and make this happen because you're Trump."

But he continues to double down on it. On his victory speech, he talked about him being a president of peace, that he was not about wars. And that is among the many other things you can take from the various messages that seem to have garnered support, that did seem to resonate with some of his base, which are people who have been very hostile towards the U.S. military deployments of the early twenty-first century in Iraq and Afghanistan and see Trump as someone who's going to end American adventurism abroad and make defense strong, but then not have to use it because he's projecting so much strength. So that's my roundabout wrap up right now, Carla.

ROBBINS:
The big takeaways that I've been getting in this is I suppose three things. One is easier said than done because we have seen no Trump policies other than tariffs. And even then, he's bit himself up on this. We started off with 10 percent than we talked about 20 percent across the board, 60 percent for China. At this point, we really don't even know. And are we doing tariffs on China because we want the Chinese to stop stealing intellectual property? Are we doing them because we want to bring everybody back to the United States? We don't even know why tariffs and this whole question about, "Are you going to punish your friends at the same time you punish your adversaries," a tariff policy that punishes Europe at the same time it punishes China, you lessen your leverage on China. And we saw that in the first Trump term.

So that's the first thing is that we don't see plan and we don't see plans on the Middle East. We don't see a plan on Ukraine. We don't see a plan even on Taiwan versus China itself. Trump in the past has said that, "Taiwan's got to spend more money before we're going to protect them." He said that about South Korea. So people are very confused, not just the analysts like us. All these countries are scrambling. They're trying to figure out, "What does Trump want from us?" Because erratic is not really a strategy. He seems to think it's a strategy, but I think that's one of the big things.

And the other big takeaway, what you're seeing from the analyst and from some leaders as well, is that Trump is extremely transactional. And that also goes back to the, "What does he want from us?" Because they know what they want from him. They don't want him to start a nuclear war. They want the United States to continue to provide protection in a good way, not as a protection racket. So countries are trying to figure it out.

And there's finally this one big choice, particularly countries that are in alliances have to make, and this is starting with Europe. When Trump was president last time around, he was always trying to cut deals individually with European countries. Angela Merkel, he was...We got to cut a deal, a direct Germany-U.S. trade deal, and she kept saying, "I'm part of a trade bloc here." Countries in Europe are going to have to make a decision, which is do we try to mollify Trump individually or do we hold together with a security pact? Do we hold together with our trade deals? Do we hold together or not? And we don't know yet which way it's going to go. Will Europe be stronger because of the United States is going to pull back or will it break the bloc apart? So we're going to have to watch for all of those things.

MCMAHON:
Yes, and following up on a few of those, Carla. The where's the plan approach, I think one example of that in the negative is remember all the hoopla around unprecedented U.S.-North Korean symmetry and talks. It was an extraordinary thing. It was U.S. and North Korean leaders meeting saying nice things.

ROBBINS:
With no planning at all from the administration beforehand.

MCMAHON:
Yeah, there was no planning. And at the end of the day, there was no result. It created a pause in what had been a very tense period of time that included rhetoric between the two sides. But real ramping up in the North Korean side.

ROBBINS:
"My button is bigger than his."

MCMAHON:
Rocket man claims and things like that. And it was nice to see a pause. It was nice to see potentially a movement towards what seemingly that sides wanted, which was a de-escalation and potentially a demilitarization of the peninsula. But you had North Korean experts saying, where's the roadmap here? And there really wasn't. It ended up being about the fact of this being able to pull off a meeting, but no there there. So that's one thing to keep an eye on as we look ahead and whether there was learnings from that process or not.

The other thing on the tariff front is going to be important to watch, and you've had a lot of interesting pieces from economic focused publications since the election, is tariffs tend to create a straight line to inflation because not only are they putting up walls against other countries trade, but they're making things more expensive for American consumers. And if there's any issue that resonated more than any other in this election, by all accounts, it was an inflation. That was the stain on the Biden administration that affected the Harris campaign. And so if 60 percent tariffs or whatever levels are suddenly emerging and it's creating huge problems in the grocery and department stores, I think you're going to see a real change in that pretty quickly and maybe a dissembling a movement towards other policies. So the speed and the way in which that kind of thing is going to be rolled out will be really worth watching, Carla.

And as you say, the individual, the focusing in individual nations is...No place is more focused on that than the European Union. That was definitely the messaging coming out of the European Union since the election where you had Ursula von der Leyen cautioning that escalating trade tensions would be against both U.S. and European interests. That was part of her congratulatory remarks to Trump. So, watch that issue, watch for the plans and watch for the timing on these things as this transition starts to get underway.

ROBBINS:
I know we want to move on to the Middle East, and I think this is a good segue because there is one other world leader we haven't talked about for the response, and that's President Biden. He has to make a decision how he's going to spend his remaining two and a half months, and what he can do possibly to Trump-proof American policy to preserve his legacy. And I think the place to watch that we don't know the answer to is, is he going to give more to Ukraine? Is he finally going to loosen the restraints on using long-range weapons to hit inside of Russia, particularly now the North Korean troops are there, is he going to push out as much military aid before Trump turns the spigot off? It's something that we can talking about I suspect on the podcast. But one more world leader, he said the right things, talking about the peaceful transition and making all these commitments, but he's got to make some decisions on his policy as well.

MCMAHON:
And some of that, in past times you've sometimes had that baked into some of the presidential transition processes, even from party to party, transitions involving Trump are different types of transitions, at least they have been in the past. So we'll have to see how that plays out as well, Carla.
But then let's do shift to the Middle East. On October 13th, seems like an era ago, Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin sent a letter to Israel warning that if it did not significantly improve humanitarian conditions in Gaza by next week, November 12th, it could risk restrictions on U.S. military assistance. Earlier this week, State Department spokesman Matthew Miller even announced a "fail" grade for Israel on improvement in aid deliveries. With that deadline now just days away, what's going to happen?

ROBBINS:
Well, let's start with why they are getting a failing grade, and he did say there's a little bit more time. The humanitarian situation in Gaza is really desperate. When Blinken and Austin sent the letter, one of their demands was that Israel allow a minimum of 350 aid trucks a day entering Gaza. And by the end of October, according to the UN, average was just seventy-one trucks a day we're getting in. So that's failing, failing, failing, failing.

It's also a huge concern over the Israeli government's decision to ban UNRWA's work in Gaza at the start of next year. The UN aid agency is the main provider of humanitarian support there. Israel accuses UNRWA of being deeply infiltrated by Hamas, a charge for which it has not provided evidence and Blinken and Austin had opposed that move in their letter as well. The U.S. is a major funder of UNRWA, and that's likely to go away with the return of President Trump. But pretty much every humanitarian aid agency, not just the UN, says that there's no other group that has the expertise to do this at a moment of desperation. And last weekend, the head of UNICEF, Kathy Russell, who's an American, warned that the entire Palestinian population in North Gaza, especially children, is at imminent risk of dying from disease, famine and the ongoing bombardments.

So that's why they're getting a failing grade, and it's a desperate circumstance. As for what the Biden administration does now, my question, and I suspect their question, is there anything within reason that a lame duck administration can do that's going to change Benjamin Netanyahu's behavior over the next two and a half months? As you said, Bob, there are a few governments that were more delighted with the Trump win, and I don't think there's much they can threaten. They're certainly not going to say, "We're not going to defend you from Iran." And-

MCMAHON:
And you've just had the defense minister step down in Israel as well, who was an antagonist.

ROBBINS:
And Netanyahu is really, even before Trump won, he's not in a compromising mood these days. Before the results were in, as you said, he fired his defense minister, Yoav Gallant, and this is a really risky time to go around firing your defense minister. He's fighting a war in Gaza war in Lebanon, stepping up attacks in Syria, stepping up attacks in the West Bank, could face another retaliatory barrage from Iran, and still he went ahead with this. This firing brought tens of thousands of Israelis into the streets because Gallant is not a dove, but he was seen as very much pushing for a cease-fire for hostages deal. And notably, he was also the interlocutor with the Biden administration, the guy they always talk to.

So Netanyahu wasn't interested in compromising before Trump won, and he's certainly not going to be interested in compromising, so I don't see what levers they have to get them to open up Gaza. If there's any pressure at all on Netanyahu it's going to, I think, come from within, and focused on some a cease-fire deal. The Israeli public doesn't seem to be out demonstrating concern for humanitarian suffering inside of Gaza itself. And so far these cease-fire negotiations aren't going anywhere.

MCMAHON:
The only other thing I would point to in the unpredictable category, Carla, relates to the election, which is you had certain groups of Palestinian Americans come out for Trump, or come out demonstrably not for Harris and voted for like Jill Stein, let's say.

ROBBINS:
Or didn't vote at all.

MCMAHON:
Or didn't vote at all. And some of them did vote speak for Trump, some of them were local office holders and things like that. In the event that they were to message to the president-elect their concern, you could see that in some way expediting some action. There has been that type of outreach before. So that's the only thing I would point to as another outlier. Your point is well taken and I think it is hard to imagine anything major changing, but we live in strange times.

ROBBINS:
Well, this goes back to the what is former President, future President Trump's policy for the Middle East. And we don't know, this is one of these things that he said that he's going to solve in two minutes. And he said in August that he told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to, "Get your victory because the killing has to stop." But he's also fiercely criticized Biden and Harris for calling for a cease-fire. So he's been all over the lot on this. Will Netanyahu be more willing to compromise if Trump is putting pressure on him? Maybe. But certainly the Netanyahu that we're seeing right now is showing no signs of willing to compromise on any of these conflicts. And with Gallant out of it, and certainly the right-wing members of his coalition were just tweeting up a storm and given speeches in the Knesset and taken a huge victory laps because they think that all the pressure's going to go away.

Bob, with that happy thought, let's move north to Baku, Azerbaijan, which is going to host the twenty-ninth UN climate change conference starting next Monday, and like its predecessors, COP29 is going to focus on reducing emissions, increasing green energy and climate financing. How successful is this going to be in addressing climate change? Azerbaijan is a major oil and gas producer. This is, what, the second one of the oil and gas producers to be the host? And we have the other factors: how is the Trump election going to affect these negotiations? President-Elect Trump calls global warming a scam. He pulled out of Paris and I think the betting is he is going to pull out again.

MCMAHON:
Yes, exactly. So it's this trend of powers hosting climate conferences and it does really cast a pall over the sense of ambition. It was also already going to be more lightly attended in part because of a scheduling overlap with the upcoming G20, Group of Twenty, summit taking place in Brazil, which comes like halfway through this conference, as well as Azerbaijan's capacity to host larger delegations and so forth. All that adds up to one that might be a more muted affair, but the climate has not stopped climating, Carla, and we are seeing one extreme set of events after another. The latest was the extraordinary flooding that we saw in Valencia, Spain. The pictures almost looked apocalyptic of cars bunched on top of each other and what happened to people in that torrent.

ROBBINS:
Hundreds of people killed.

MCMAHON:
Hundreds of people killed. We talked about the extreme weather that has hit the United States, Helene's heavy dumping of rain, unprecedented dumping of rain almost on parts of North Carolina, for example. And what that did we're just in a period of ourselves, I think it's on record now as tied for or we've reached the longest period of no rain in Washington, DC area, thirty-five days or so. Although these are things that are happening with more frequency on, they're hitting smaller communities larger.

And so let's look at what this summit's supposed to accomplish. And a little bit of context, COPs are supposed to increase the ambition of countries to curb global warming below 2.7ºFahrenheit of pre-industrial levels. That is the level seen as being able to avoid catastrophic harm to the planet. The planet is close to breaching that limit already, and countries are going to be trying to...Especially the poorer countries, communities that are more vulnerable to extreme climate events, they're going to be pushing for more ambitious emissions reductions as well as identifying new sources of finance because the finance can help in these two terms you're going to hear continuously: mitigation and adaptation.

Mitigation, how to move from heavy reliance on fossil fuels to green energies in ways that can help a poorer country that doesn't have the wherewithal to do that. And climate finance is seen as a way to help that as well as adaptation, which is buttressing, building up your infrastructure, whether it's moving people away from coastal areas, just really hardening the ways in which structures are built in the first place and being able to withstand everything from extreme flooding to extreme heat, and both of which are increasing in frequency.

There's a lot of money at stake and a lot of money is needed. The Independent High-Level Expert Group on Climate Finance two years ago found that developing countries need around one trillion, with a T, dollars per year by next year, and 2.4 trillion by 2030 to meet their climate finance needs. They are short of that. The ambition to pony up more could take a big hit with the incoming Trump administration, which has not been a fan of the COP process, which has deeply skeptical of the charge of human-caused climate change and as you said, is likely to just yank the United States out of the Paris Accord as well, which is what had given impetus to this climate finance among other goals that had been set up by the international community.

It doesn't mean that there be a total stalling or lack of movement, though, Carla. I think that's going to be interesting to see first of all, who attends from the U.S. and what kind of agency they have and Baku. But what other countries are saying about what they're prepared to do regardless. U.S. is a major emitter, but it's not going to be the major emitter going forward. Climate experts are saying that it's China and emerging economies that are the bigger ones.

ROBBINS:
India.

MCMAHON:
India in particular. The U.S. also can tap into and continue to tap into technological innovation that has made purveying of power cheaper and there's interest in really ramping up power because of the needs of sectors like AI. And one power that has some controversy but has zero emissions is nuclear power. And you're seeing a lot more interest in that, including in so-called red states, very pro-Trump states, that even during the Trump's first administration ramped up their green energy. So these are interesting dynamics that are playing out that mean that it's not a black and white world as far as this goes, but it's going to be a more challenging world, I think, as we see this next COP, COP29, play out.

ROBBINS:
And last time when the U.S. pulled out of, under the Trump administration, pulled out of Paris, people said, "Don't despair completely because there's a lot of progress going on in the states, even energy companies are switching, moving away from coal, that there is a positive inertia behind this." But there's also interesting political dynamics are going on here. One of the things the Republicans have vowed to do is to repeal this IRA, the Inflation Reduction Act, which has nearly $400 billion in green projects which have been excoriated by many Republican politicians, but an enormous amount of that money is going to red states.

And so we will see that'll be a really early test of a political commitment that was made that odds are is not going to be kept because people aren't seeing the real value of it on the ground. So there's some positive things there that are probably going to continue to go on whether or not the U.S. is inside the Paris Accord, but it's race against time. And I don't think even the U.S., which is making an enormous amount of progress is going to make this, what are we supposed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent by 2030? I don't think even the United States is going to meet that. I think we're going to be, what, at 40 percent by 2030?

MCMAHON:
Yeah, that's right. The goals are just achingly slow. And despite the clear ramp up wherever you live, blue state, red state, wherever, purple state, it just is not a breakthrough issue. Florida, seemingly, we need to get hit by 20 powerful hurricanes a year before the increasingly red governorship of that state would take up and call a spade a spade, although you are seeing money going to adaptation and not so much mitigation, but adaptation. So it's going to be hard to see that argument prevailing, as you say, as the clock is ticking and the global warming is accrued, and you could tomorrow have an incredible breathtaking commitment towards mitigation efforts and still what's built up in the atmosphere is troubling enough that there will be consequences as the world needs to adjust and move on.

But there are these cross-cutting elements, as you say. And President-Elect Trump has been very strong in saying he wants to go tap into what he's called the liquid gold of the vast U.S. fossil fuel resources. But there was tepid interest in that even during his first administration among oil companies even bidding on Alaskan fields, for example. So it's going to be very interesting to see how much the industry sources take them up on that. And people like Elon Musk, whose Tesla does not run on fossil fuels...Whether or not that triggers a move in another direction that we're not seeing right now. But the signs are that there's going to be a chilling, pardon the expression, in climate policy for the U.S. at least in the immediate future.

ROBBINS:
Temperatures go up, they go down

MCMAHON:
Indeed.

ROBBINS:
As the soon-to-be president would say.

MCMAHON:
Well, Carla, we've talked our way into the audience figure of the week portion of the podcast. This is where listeners vote every Tuesday and Wednesday at @cfr_org's Instagram story. And the choice this week also had to do an election in Moldova, of all places. The figure was "Pro-West President Sandu Re-elected in Moldova." So Maia Sandu, what does it mean for her to continue in her role?

ROBBINS:
Well, first I want to thank our listeners for choosing the rare topic these days with a happy outcome and an election topic with a happy outcome. So thank you. And this race was actually a runoff and it drew a lot of attention and anxiety because while sitting President Maia Sandu finished ahead in a field of eleven candidates in the first round of elections last month, which we actually talked about on the podcast a referendum at the same time last month, championed by Sandu on whether to amend their constitution to commit to future EU membership passed, but only by a shockingly low margin of 50.39 percent. And everybody was really surprised because the polls said they were going to do fabulously well on this. And so it just barely eked out.
And adding to the anxiety in the second round Moldova vote, it just came just a week after the pro-Moscow Georgian Dream Party triumphed in a hotly contested election in Georgia. And the Russians were accused by the EU and pretty much everybody else of aggressively meddling in both the Georgian and the Moldovan vote. And one of the favorite themes of their misinformation efforts in both places was, "You lean too far West, you end up like Ukraine." So a lot of people said that this was not a fair election in Georgia, but it certainly went pro-Moscow in Georgia. And the fear was that it wasn't going to turn out well in Moldova.

But despite all the fears, Sandu won handily with 54.9 percent of the vote against 45.3 for Alexandr Stoianoglo. I'm probably pronouncing that wrong. He's a former prosecutor who she fired because he was under criminal investigation for corruption. He denied he was what she kept calling him, "Moscow's man," but investigative journalists in Moldova reported that his candidacy was backed by this elaborate $30 million plus vote buying operation, which was financed and directed from Moscow by a fugitive Moldovan tycoon. So certainly tight there with Moscow.

So it turned out well. Everybody's thrilled. The EU is thrilled. Washington has been supporting Sandu politically and with an enormous amount of foreign aid, but she can rest on her laurels for a very short period of time. Next year, Moldova holds parliamentary elections and there's no sign that the Russians are going to back off. And we're going to see if the Trump administration was going to continue to support Sandu with the same level of enthusiasm.

MCMAHON:
It is a pretty impressive development given, again, if you look at a map, tiny Moldova perched up against Ukraine with a separatist region where there are Russian troops, heavy Russian misinformation campaigns, this is the weakest country in Europe, the yearning to be part of Europe, the yearning to support a candidate who wants to be part of Europe was compelling and they did it. And it is a story definitely worth watching and seeing where they're able to take it in the coming years.

ROBBINS:
Well, I want to believe, and it certainly was a very happy outcome, but we do have to note, and the pro-Russian socialist party, which was backing her opponent, denounced the election outcome, said that she was an illegitimate president, claiming that their candidate had won the majority of votes cast inside Moldova. And I think that is actually true. She won because she got 80 percent of the more than three hundred thousand people who voted from outside the country. And you had people voting in London, you had people voting, a lot of them in Romania itself. Moldova has lost an enormous amount of population because their economy has done so poorly.

So, this is the internationalist vote wanting Moldova to prosper and be internationalist and part of the EU. So I think a lot of the grievance vote that exists in a lot of countries in Europe is still there as well inside of Moldova. And they went for her opponent. But she didn't steal the election, even though the pro-Moscow guy said she did. She won fair and square.

MCMAHON:
And that's our look at the world next week. Here's some other stories to keep an eye on: the year of elections marches on in Mauritius and Sri Lanka; China holds its biggest government-sponsored air show in Zhuhai with drones being a prominent feature; and Europe marks the thirty-fifth anniversary of the Fall of the Berlin Wall.

ROBBINS:
Another happy story.

MCMAHON:
Thirty-five years Carla. Can you believe it?

ROBBINS:
I remember it well.

MCMAHON:
So do I.

ROBBINS:
Please subscribe to the world next week on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, or your favorite podcast platform. And leave us a review while you're at it. We appreciate the feedback. If you'd like to reach out, please email us at [email protected]. The publications mentioned in this episode as well as a transcript of our conversation are listed on the podcast page for The World Next Week on CFR.org. Please note that opinions expressed The World Next Week are solely those of the host, not of CFR, which takes no institutional positions on matters of policy.

Today's program was produced by Ester Fang with Director of Podcasting Gabriel Sierra. And special thanks to Helena Kopans-Johnson and Colette Yamashita Holcomb for their research assistance. Our theme music is provided by, he's everywhere, Markus Zakaria. And this is Carla Robbins saying so long, and I'm glad you're voted, even though the country is profoundly divided, but we all have to pull together now.

MCMAHON:
And this is Bob McMahon saying so long and continue to be careful out there.