0:07

Well, as is the case with so

0:09

much of what has taken place since

0:11

last week's presidential debate, I

0:13

have an update for you about polling, which

0:15

I said was going to be what I

0:17

wanted to look at post debate to figure

0:19

out the impact of that debate. And

0:22

depending on which story you want to tell yourself,

0:25

depending on which pundit or commentator or

0:27

influencer you want to listen to, you

0:30

can find a case that the

0:32

polling has fallen off of a cliff for Joe

0:34

Biden and he couldn't possibly win. Or

0:37

you can find and make the case that

0:39

it's hurt him a little bit, but

0:41

it does not at all appear as though

0:43

this ends President Biden's chances at reelection. Let

0:46

me give you the numbers and then you

0:48

figure it out. Now, first and foremost, it

0:51

is accurate to say that

0:53

Trump's lead nationally has

0:55

surged 60% since the debate. Where

0:59

do I get those numbers? Well, the real

1:01

clear politics polling average going into the

1:04

debate was a 1.5 percentage point

1:06

lead for Trump. And it is now a 2.4 percentage

1:09

point lead for Trump, an increase of

1:11

nine tenths of a point going

1:14

from 1.5 to 2.4. That

1:17

is indeed our arithmetic.

1:20

Uh, savants, uh, will

1:22

be able to confirm an increase in

1:24

the size of the lead of 60%. But

1:27

what's the counterpoint to that? The

1:29

counterpoint is quite simple. It's less than

1:31

a point. The margin of error

1:33

in the vast majority of the underlying polls

1:36

is somewhere between two and four or

1:38

three and five percentage points. The fact

1:41

that this was arguably the worst debate

1:43

performance in what decades

1:46

and it has only cost Joe Biden nine tenths

1:48

of a point, some of which

1:50

he may recover between now and November. Maybe

1:53

it's not that bad. And again, a lot of

1:55

this right now truly is

1:57

about the story that people want to

1:59

tell. themselves. I think the reality is,

2:01

is not particularly cut and dry. Another

2:04

data point, just so we have it going

2:07

into the debate, we looked

2:09

at and I reported to you that

2:11

the five thirty eight election

2:13

forecast had it at 50 50 with 100

2:15

election simulations

2:18

done. Biden came out

2:20

ahead in 50 of them becoming president. Trump

2:22

came out ahead in 50 of them becoming

2:25

president. Those numbers have shifted, but

2:27

they've shifted to 52. Trump Biden

2:29

48. So we went from 50 50,

2:33

the worst debate performance in decades. It

2:35

is now 52 48 Trump. So

2:38

there it really does depend on

2:40

the story you want to tell yourself. Now let

2:42

me mention one other thing. And

2:44

this, you know, maybe

2:47

is less positive, which

2:49

is that there has also been an

2:51

uptick to Trump's lead in at least

2:53

some of the critical swing states. So

2:55

we look at the average in

2:58

Arizona. You see a little bit of an uptick

3:00

for Trump from 48 low 48 to high 48.

3:04

You look at the state of Nevada. Actually

3:08

in Nevada, things look perfectly fine for

3:10

Joe Biden. You look

3:12

at Wisconsin and you see it's

3:14

basically flat. Michigan,

3:17

you see Trump getting a little bit

3:19

of a pop, but not much. So

3:21

if you want to make the most

3:23

negative possible case for Trump's chances, it's

3:25

oh boy, 60 percent

3:28

lead extension here for

3:30

Trump, getting an

3:32

important boost, modest but important boost in some

3:35

swing states. If you want to make the

3:37

opposite case, it's Joe Biden has suffered as

3:39

much as he's going to suffer from this.

3:41

He lost nine tenths of a point and

3:43

it is all potentially uphill from here. What

3:46

do I think? I really don't know. I

3:49

really don't know. And to be perfectly

3:51

frank, I think we need another

3:53

week or two of polling to

3:55

really be able to say more definitively the direction that

3:57

this is going. So that's where we are. Uh,

4:00

the polling goes, what about Trump's

4:02

sentencing, which we were expecting, uh, in

4:05

about a week. Let's now

4:07

discuss what summer saying is the

4:09

best possible news for Trump about

4:12

criminal sentencing and others are saying,

4:14

well, hold on a second. This

4:16

may not be so good. The

4:18

judge in Donald Trump's hush

4:20

money trial, Juan Marchan, has

4:22

delayed Donald Trump's sentencing. Trump's

4:25

sentencing was scheduled for next Thursday, July

4:27

11th. It has

4:30

now been rescheduled at

4:32

least until September 18th. Why

4:35

has this taken place? Because

4:38

the court needs time to assess

4:40

whether the Supreme Court's recent

4:43

decision alters

4:45

the context or parameters

4:48

of sentencing a president, a former president

4:50

in this particular case for actions taken

4:52

while and after he was president of

4:55

the United States. Now there's a couple

4:57

of really interesting aspects of this to

4:59

consider. First is who

5:01

does this benefit? There are those who

5:04

say this is great for Trump. It's going to

5:06

be delayed at least until the 18th of September,

5:08

maybe even longer. He may not even be sentenced

5:10

before the election. Okay. The counterpoint

5:12

to this is that if September 18th

5:14

is a sentencing date does hold, you could

5:17

see Trump sentenced criminally. The

5:20

first former president ever to have this

5:22

happen when people are

5:24

really paying attention. Rachel Bittikofer, election

5:26

forecaster said after labor day, meaning

5:28

early September, that's when everyone

5:31

who's going to pay attention is paying

5:33

attention and you're going to dump

5:35

in in the true

5:38

heart of this campaign, the sentencing.

5:40

It could potentially damage Trump, reminding

5:43

voters, wait, do you really want to vote for the

5:45

convicted felon who's just been sentenced? However,

5:48

if the goal for Trump is to

5:50

get the sentencing delayed indefinitely, well, then

5:52

we could be talking about a different

5:55

scenario. Now there is another legal aspect

5:57

that I think is important to at

5:59

least briefly mention. The

6:01

argument made by

6:04

the majority decision at the Supreme

6:06

Court earlier this week with regard

6:08

to immunity relates

6:11

to Donald Trump and

6:14

his time in office exclusively,

6:16

that immunity only applies there. And

6:19

the hush money case really relates

6:21

to the things Trump did while he

6:24

was candidate Trump before ever being president

6:27

and what he did while being president elect

6:29

Trump to some degree. In other words, if

6:31

the Supreme Court's argument about presidential

6:34

immunity, uh, is about what is

6:36

done while Trump was president, it

6:39

wouldn't apply to things that Donald Trump did

6:41

before he was president. Therefore there's no reason

6:43

to delay the sentencing. The counterpoint is that

6:46

a bunch of the evidence that was presented in

6:48

the case was indeed

6:50

from Donald Trump's presidency. The

6:52

Supreme Court included in the

6:55

majority decision that evidence

6:57

of that nature cannot

6:59

be used in court cases. So it

7:02

is not an open and shut case that, hey,

7:04

listen, the hush money stuff was before Trump was

7:06

president. So there's no impact based on the immunity

7:09

decision. There may be an impact. Judge

7:11

Michonne now will have to consider that

7:13

as he evaluates. Does the Supreme Court

7:16

immunity decision in any way, uh, impact

7:18

his forthcoming sentencing of Donald

7:21

Trump on balance? Is

7:24

this probably better for Trump than

7:26

it is worse? I'm

7:28

assuming so as of right now. And

7:31

the worst case scenario would be Michonne says,

7:33

Hey, you know what? I looked at this

7:35

no impact at all. September 18th we're going

7:37

to sentence could be the worst case

7:40

scenario for Trump. On the other hand, it

7:42

is absolutely conceivable that there are further

7:44

delays, maybe even pushing this book beyond

7:46

the election day in November. Uh,

7:49

and, and maybe just as, or more importantly, if

7:51

the judge says, Hey, you know what? This

7:54

does relate to the Supreme Court's immunity

7:56

decision and I cannot render sentence or

7:58

fill in the blank. with whatever, uh,

8:01

that potentially is very good for Donald Trump.

8:04

Whoa. These people don't know what the

8:06

hell they're doing. I accidentally hit a button on

8:08

my soundboard that was not on purpose. Unfortunately, it's

8:10

not my own feedback that that was Trump's feedback.

8:12

Uh, I think that if I was a betting

8:15

man, which I am not, if I were a

8:17

betting man, I bet that

8:19

this probably does help Trump to some degree.

8:22

You know, it keeps happening to a really nice

8:24

guy. Rudy Giuliani, former Trump

8:26

attorney has been disbarred in New

8:28

York. It is a

8:30

really Rudy Giuliani hitting rock bottom

8:32

here. The Associated Press reports Giuliani

8:34

is disbarred in New York as

8:36

court finds he repeatedly lied about

8:40

Trump's 2020 election loss. The

8:43

former mayor of New York prosecutor, legal

8:45

advisor to Trump was disbarred in

8:47

New York on Tuesday for false statements

8:49

he repeatedly made about Trump's 2020 election

8:51

loss. The Manhattan

8:53

appeals court ruled that Giuliani, who already had his

8:56

New York law license suspended a few years ago,

8:58

is no longer allowed to practice law

9:00

in the state effective immediately. They

9:03

said, quote, the seriousness of

9:05

respondents misconduct cannot be overstated.

9:08

Giuliani free flagrantly misused and

9:11

fragrantly as well. If you

9:13

remember the flatulence situation, Giuliani

9:16

flagrantly misused his position and

9:18

baselessly attacked and undermined the

9:20

integrity of this country's electoral

9:23

process. In doing so, he

9:25

not only deliberately violated some of the most

9:28

fundamental tenets of the legal profession, but he

9:30

also actively contributed to the national strife that

9:32

followed the 2020 election for

9:34

which he is entirely unrepentant. Rudy

9:36

said on Tuesday, he's not surprised.

9:39

He claimed in a post on

9:41

X, formerly known as Twitter, that

9:43

the case was what quote, based

9:45

on an activist complaint replete with

9:47

false arguments. You know, I've said

9:50

this before and it has never been

9:52

more true than it is now. Attaching

9:54

your buggy to

9:56

Trump's horse or to the horse that is

9:58

Trump, maybe. Uh, really doesn't seem

10:01

to be good. It really doesn't

10:03

seem to be good for people's careers. It

10:05

really doesn't seem to be good for people's

10:07

health, emotional, psychological, physical, and all of it.

10:10

And the sad part at the end of the entire

10:12

situation at the end, at the end of the day,

10:15

um, is that Trump doesn't

10:18

care about Rudy. Really? I

10:20

think throughout this entire legal problem that

10:22

Rudy has been having, Trump held

10:24

a single fundraiser for him and

10:26

it was sort of a very low energy one. Uh,

10:29

Trump cares about people for as long as,

10:31

and to the extent that they are useful

10:33

to him, that applies to

10:36

the random single voter in

10:38

Pennsylvania and it goes

10:41

all the way up, certainly to Rudy Giuliani.

10:43

The question we have left is, does it

10:46

also apply to his own wife and

10:48

kids and family? I don't know that we know

10:50

the answer to that yet, but it is truly

10:52

a sort of, is

10:54

it tragic comic or is it just tragic?

10:58

A kind of de noumane to

11:00

Rudy Giuliani's legal and political career.

11:02

I don't know, but if you

11:04

look through his Amazon order list,

11:07

which was recently published in connection

11:09

with, uh, the bankruptcy that

11:11

he has filed, there's a

11:13

lot of really sad things going on should

14:00

get them to say, Holy hell,

14:03

there is no way I'm voting for

14:05

Trump or staying home now because

14:07

we now have opened the door and Trump's

14:09

lawyers are already doing it, Ben, for

14:12

them to argue Trump trying

14:14

to steal the election was all

14:17

an official act and

14:19

therefore protected by immunity.

14:22

It is extraordinarily dangerous. I

14:24

hope that everyone who sees these decisions

14:26

will say two things. Number one, am

14:28

I going to help Trump get reelected,

14:31

whether it's by staying home or voting

14:33

third party or whatever? I hope the

14:35

answer is no. But importantly,

14:38

if indeed Trump can

14:40

justify that the fake slates of electors

14:42

were an official act, that

14:45

inciting an insurrection was an official act, that all

14:47

of it was official and he can't be prosecuted

14:49

for it. What is to

14:51

stop Biden from ordering the imprisonment or

14:53

assassination of Trump and saying it is

14:55

an official act for the purposes of

14:58

national security? And what they say when

15:00

you confront them with that with that ban is they go,

15:03

oh, you slippery slope people. That's

15:05

crazy. That's crazy. But they

15:07

don't substantively address it. So I think

15:09

it's terrifying. And I hope people get

15:11

out and vote. Agreed.

15:13

Thank you. All right, Ben. Thank

15:16

you so much. Great to hear from you.

15:18

We are. Let's see here. Why don't we

15:20

go to? Is

15:22

it Adrian from San Francisco? Adrian,

15:25

welcome to the show. What's

15:27

on your mind today? Hi,

15:30

David. Can you hear me all right? Yes, I can. Excellent.

15:33

Well, thanks for having me, David. I have if

15:35

you don't mind, I'd like to be a little

15:37

bit mean today. OK.

15:41

So I wanted to ask you

15:43

a question based on my impression of

15:46

your coverage about Trump's cognitive

15:49

decline. So I noticed that you had

15:51

a lot of coverage on

15:53

Trump's cognitive issues. He says a

15:55

lot of bizarre things. And

15:58

you also had some experts. on

16:00

who had some pretty interesting

16:02

and compelling evidence that Trump

16:04

was experiencing a potential mild

16:07

cognitive impairment. But from

16:09

my perspective, and feel free to correct me here,

16:11

it seemed like you did not have as much

16:13

coverage on Biden's cognitive

16:16

decline. And I think his

16:18

cognitive decline was quite apparent, at least

16:20

from my perspective, in that debacle

16:22

of a debate this week. Yeah, I wanted

16:25

to just directly ask you before

16:27

the debate happened, before the whole

16:29

event happened, what was your

16:31

assessment of the cognitive ability of

16:34

both candidates? So I this is a good

16:36

question, Adrian. Let's take the questions one by

16:38

one. Let's start with that. So

16:41

as a nonprofessional in this

16:43

field myself, I was

16:45

relying on experts when

16:48

I would give the experts the opportunity to

16:50

weigh in on both Trump and Biden. Their

16:53

consensus pre-debate was Biden seems to

16:55

be experiencing appropriate and expected age

16:58

related slowing down, whereas Trump is

17:00

having a more serious issue. That

17:02

was their view. And as a

17:05

non-expert myself, that's what I went

17:07

with. We have since

17:09

seen not only Biden's

17:11

performance at the debate, but

17:14

we now have sourced reporting

17:16

that says there are people

17:18

around Biden managing

17:20

his schedule for

17:22

to make him be out in

17:24

public during his better hours. So

17:26

now that I have additional information,

17:29

my perspective has changed again as

17:31

a non-expert who's just following what

17:33

are the experts saying? What are

17:35

the sources saying? Yeah,

17:39

that's very fair. Now, thanks so much for helping

17:41

me understand your perspective, David. All

17:44

right. Adrian from San Francisco. And by the

17:46

way, I should mention, I think it's important

17:48

to include in this discussion. There's

17:51

a poll that finds 72 percent

17:54

of Americans believe Biden's unfit to

17:56

serve. Fifty percent

17:58

believe Trump's unfit to serve. So

18:01

the gap, while not zero, is

18:04

not as insignificant as one might

18:06

believe. And

18:08

in a sense, the fitness

18:12

is close to even. It's not I understand it's

18:14

50 and 72. It's not even I'm

18:16

not pretending it is. But it's not that 98 percent

18:20

of the country thinks Trump is fit to serve and

18:22

only 28 percent thinks Biden is fit

18:25

to serve. An interesting detail which may play

18:27

a role over the

18:29

forthcoming months. Let's go next

18:31

to Bub from Texas, who I

18:33

see is also a website member.

18:35

Bub, thank you and welcome to

18:37

the show. What's going on with you?

18:40

What's on your mind today? Hello, Mr.

18:42

Kagan. Can you hear me? Yes, I can. Yes,

18:45

I just want to applaud you

18:47

for your willingness to go into

18:49

hostile interviews. I think one

18:51

of the main benefits of it is it exposes

18:55

it exposes you to people who

18:57

might not otherwise hear you. I

18:59

discovered you on TikTok and

19:01

it was a clip from the Patrick Bette David

19:04

show that was clipped in a way to make

19:06

you look ridiculous. But I'm

19:08

like, hey, this cat's making a lot of sense. So

19:11

I just want to say I really think

19:13

you're on to something. Yeah. And

19:17

you do it with a lot of right

19:20

wing spaces. And I was wondering if it

19:22

was possible to get into those hardcore left

19:24

spaces and kind of,

19:26

you know, I don't know that

19:28

there is as much to be gained

19:30

from doing that as counterintuitive as that

19:32

might sound. And also, some

19:36

the type of toxicity that exists

19:38

in the hardcore left spaces you're

19:40

talking about is so

19:43

vile to me that for my own

19:45

mental health, I choose to limit my

19:47

involvement in it. Yeah,

19:51

totally understand, understand that. But

19:53

yeah, that's all I had. I just want

19:55

to say keep up the good work. All

19:58

right, Bob from Texas. Great to hear from

20:00

you very much. appreciate it. Why don't we

20:02

go next to how about Evan from New

20:04

Hampshire? Evan, welcome to the David Pakman show

20:07

on the eve of the Fourth of July.

20:09

What's going on? Hello, David.

20:11

Can you hear me all right? Yes, I can. Thank

20:14

you very much. I've been on before, so thank

20:16

you for for letting me on again. Pleasure. I

20:18

just wanted to ask you in more of a

20:20

reflection on the past couple of

20:22

years or really since Donald Trump has been

20:24

elected, do you think the show has changed

20:26

and and you've changed as a person doing

20:29

this work? Well, the how I've

20:31

changed as a person is tough because if

20:33

I go back to 2016 before Trump was

20:35

president, that was eight years

20:38

ago. I didn't have a kid back

20:40

then. I was I had done a

20:42

lot less traveling. It was pre pandemic.

20:44

I mean, it's very difficult to say

20:46

how have I changed as a result

20:48

of Trump being president. But

20:51

as far as the show, here's the thing. The

20:54

show goes through phases and

20:56

the phases are generically

20:58

the side we support is

21:01

in power and then

21:03

the side we support is out of

21:05

power. It happened with Barack Obama. It

21:07

happened with George W. Bush. It

21:09

happened with Barack Obama. It happened with Trump.

21:11

It's happening with Biden. It may happen again

21:13

with Trump. These shows

21:16

and shows on the right

21:18

as well. They naturally evolve

21:20

depending on whether you

21:23

are seen as more or less in

21:25

agreement, as the term may be, with the forces

21:27

that are in power. Now, it doesn't mean that

21:30

I agree with everything Biden does. But obviously, Biden,

21:32

I voted for Biden. The guy I voted for

21:34

is currently in power. That naturally

21:36

affects the show. And in

21:38

addition to that, I think one of the biggest influences

21:40

on the show over the last couple of years has

21:43

been what I see as a legitimately growing

21:45

threat from the possibility of four more Trump

21:47

years that simply wasn't there in 2012, for

21:50

example, when it was

21:52

Obama versus Romney. I preferred Obama over

21:54

Romney. Right, Evan? But I didn't go

21:56

around saying the foundations of our democracy

21:59

depend on this. to

24:01

the autocrats and the authoritarians and the dictators

24:03

and to be enamored with their strength and

24:05

fortitude and all of it. And I think

24:08

it'll big picture, Eric, I think it'll be

24:10

a pretty serious humiliation for the United States

24:12

if that were to happen. I

24:16

largely agree with that. I also think an

24:18

other big problem is that the United States

24:20

increasingly is being seen less and less as

24:23

a reliable partner internationally because it seems like

24:25

now when it comes to foreign policy, there

24:27

is no United States any longer. It's entirely

24:29

based on the whims of whomever is in

24:32

power. Yes. And well, but not equally.

24:34

Let me add one thing to that, Eric. It

24:36

is true, but it's not that

24:38

Trump and Biden both are indifferent

24:40

to the commitments the U.S. has

24:43

made or whatever. Right. I

24:45

mean, it's yes, it's true that

24:47

Trump said Iran nuclear deal. I don't really

24:49

like it. I'm out. Even though

24:52

Iran didn't violate the deal, it's true that it

24:54

was Trump who started to talk about, well, maybe

24:56

not NATO. We don't come to the defense of

24:58

our allies or with the Paris

25:00

climate agreement that I'm out of that. So

25:02

it is absolutely true that the U.S. is

25:04

is not a trustworthy negotiating partner with someone

25:07

like that at the helm. But

25:09

Biden is not like that at all. Biden does

25:11

respect our commitments. Oh, I

25:13

totally agree with you. And I mean, generally, I

25:16

think that Biden, for instance, has been pretty OK

25:18

on Ukraine. I do think he's been a bit

25:20

weaker than what I would like. The

25:22

problem is that the United States, as

25:24

it's viewed internationally, kind

25:26

of is viewed as, you know, swinging back and

25:28

forth between radically different positions depending on who is

25:30

in power. And that is something

25:33

that's going to have really reverberating effects in

25:35

the future, even if Trumpism is soundly defeated

25:38

after me, even after he wins, you know. And

25:40

in twenty twenty eight, there's a big democratic sweep.

25:43

It will still be this lingering history of,

25:45

well, can we truly trust the United States?

25:47

And that's a really scary thing for many

25:49

of us in Europe to kind of be

25:51

confronted with because of the war in Ukraine,

25:53

because Ukraine's success in many ways

25:55

also depends on continued American support. And

25:58

if Trump goes in and he. We just decided

26:00

to just, you know, cut off all a to

26:02

Ukraine or God forbid even try to pressure Ukraine

26:04

into some type of quote unquote

26:06

peace deal with Russia that will maybe freeze the

26:08

conflict for another few years and then restart it

26:11

in the future. A lot of us are going

26:13

to be in deep crap and I'm

26:15

really, really worried about what kind of, you

26:17

know, reverberating effects that will have for the

26:20

international alliances the U.S. has set up across

26:22

the entire world. Also of

26:24

countries like China, eyeing Taiwan increasingly. I

26:27

agree with you. One hundred percent, Eric, thank

26:29

you for making the point. Thank

26:32

you. All right. Eric from Denmark.

26:35

Let's go next to

26:37

straws from Idaho. Straws

26:40

welcome to the program. What's going on? What's

26:43

going on? Hey, David, I just love your

26:45

show and everything. I had one

26:47

question like, why do you

26:49

think that the cops and military are

26:51

going to like protect us from Project

26:53

Twenty Five and all the

26:56

deportations and everything? I've

27:00

not said anything about. Oh,

27:02

no, my own voice is feeding back on a

27:04

delay straws. OK,

27:08

I've not said anything about the military or

27:10

the police protecting us from Project Twenty Twenty

27:12

Five. I don't know what you're referring to.

27:15

Oh, I just heard like a

27:17

couple of times like when people

27:19

were concerned about the

27:21

Trump coming and all that,

27:23

that you were like, well, hopefully

27:25

the laws will stand and the

27:28

police will will. Oh, OK. I

27:30

got you. That has nothing

27:32

to do with Project Twenty Twenty Five. What

27:34

I said was maybe it's naive, maybe it's

27:36

idealistic. But I'm hopeful that

27:38

if Trump loses and tries to steal

27:40

it again, that our systems

27:43

will be better prepared to repel

27:45

that. I'm not convinced they will.

27:47

But that's with regard to Trump and the election

27:50

specifically, not about Project Twenty Twenty Five.

27:53

OK, OK. Yeah, I just kind of wanted to bring

27:56

that up. I appreciate it. All right. Thanks

27:58

so much. from

28:00

Idaho. Let's take a very quick break.

28:02

We'll get back to the phones in

28:04

a moment and hear from a few

28:06

more people. David

28:30

Pakman show. All right. Let's go

28:32

back to discord. I know we

28:34

don't normally do this anymore, but

28:36

just because some people wanted it,

28:38

it's right before a holiday. We're

28:40

hearing from some folks via discord

28:42

at David pakman.com/discord. Let's go next

28:44

to Carl from Boston. Carl from

28:46

Boston. Welcome to the show. What's

28:49

what are you up to today? What's on your mind? Carl

28:54

from Boston, you've been invited

28:56

to join the show. Please

28:58

accept. Hi,

29:01

sorry. Can you hear me? Yes. Hello.

29:04

You're on the air. Can you hear me? Yes. Oh,

29:10

you can. OK, perfect. So I

29:12

first of all, congratulations on your

29:14

kid. That's awesome. Thank

29:18

you. I was wondering what your take is.

29:20

I was watching the debate live and then

29:23

right after it ended, there was breaking news

29:25

and they were saying a lot of the

29:28

quote unquote leading Democrats are probably

29:30

thinking of like last minutes pulling

29:32

out Joe Biden and maybe

29:34

putting in someone else. I don't know who it

29:37

could be. Maybe like Kamala. I'm not sure. I

29:39

was just wondering what your thoughts on that. Do

29:41

you think it would be a smart idea to

29:43

do it this late in the race? So I've

29:45

already given kind of my full take on this.

29:47

I do not know the answer because keeping Biden

29:49

has risks and replacing Biden has

29:51

risks. But I take issue, Carl, with

29:53

this idea of top Democrats replacing Biden.

29:56

Biden has the delegates to be the nominee.

29:58

This is the first time I've ever seen

30:00

a Republican vote. The DNC rules are that

30:02

those delegates are up to Biden to release.

30:05

So this idea of taking it, listen,

30:07

you can pressure Biden to step down.

30:10

His family can. You can show him polling

30:12

if that polling comes to be that says

30:14

you're going to lose. I don't think we

30:17

have that yet. But it is

30:19

ultimately up to Biden. It's not up

30:21

to Kamala Harris or Nancy Pelosi or

30:23

Chuck Schumer. Biden has the

30:25

delegates and it is up to him to release

30:27

them. So I don't know what would be best.

30:29

My view right now is I

30:31

want at least a couple of weeks of

30:34

polling to see what the change is to

30:37

then have a better sense of whether Joe

30:39

Biden stepping aside would be a logical thing.

30:42

Yeah. Oh, OK. Yeah, that's OK. Yeah,

30:44

that makes a lot of sense. I mean, I was just

30:46

wondering, like, if everyone calls him sleepy, Joe Biden, why doesn't

30:48

he look so well rested? Right.

30:50

Well, listen, Trump's the one who slept through his

30:53

criminal trial. So I think that that's not an

30:55

apropos nickname anymore. Yeah, I

30:57

did a lot more than sleep through his trials. I heard. But

31:00

thank you so much for your time. All right. Thanks,

31:02

Carl. Yeah. Anything else

31:04

Trump did during his trial, I certainly didn't didn't hear

31:06

about. So I'll I'll reserve judgment on that as well.

31:08

All right. Let's go next

31:10

to Ty from Georgia. Ty

31:13

from Georgia. Welcome to the show. Hello,

31:15

David. Can you hear me? Yes, I can. OK,

31:18

so I got to admit I'm

31:20

a little scared after he's seeing

31:22

the debate. Yeah. I don't

31:25

know. I'm kind of like I really kind of wish

31:27

they would have had a fact check person there. But

31:29

I feel like even then they're

31:31

just going to believe whatever Trump says. So I

31:33

feel like the candidates, I mean, it was part

31:35

of the agreement that there be no on screen

31:37

fact checking if they don't even want on screen

31:39

fact checking. They're definitely not going to allow fact

31:41

checking as part of the debate. Yeah,

31:44

that's unfortunate. There is one thing I've been kind of

31:46

thinking of, though, is, you know, how

31:48

one of the biggest things they brought up to

31:51

criticize Biden is the Afghanistan withdrawal.

31:53

Right. Yes. It

31:55

was bad. But what I think is really weird is

31:57

a lot of them want to.

31:59

to cut all funding to Ukraine.

32:02

So it's just if rush, if Trump

32:04

wins, he cuts all funding to Ukraine.

32:07

Russia takes over Ukraine. Ukraine sees as it to

32:09

exist. Is that something that they'd want? Does

32:12

it seem like I mean, listen, you'd have

32:14

to ask them. I think one of the

32:16

one of the unfortunate realities

32:19

about a lot of these issues

32:22

is that we have a

32:24

we have a movement right now. Maga Trump

32:26

ism that's willing to

32:28

say absolutely anything, even if

32:31

it conflicts with what with what they

32:33

said yesterday or their stated principles. And so your question

32:35

is a good one, which is, wait a second. What

32:38

about this? What about that? It

32:40

doesn't seem to make sense. You're asking the

32:42

question as if they care about consistency

32:44

at all and they don't. So

32:46

it's sort of like we think we've got them,

32:48

but they just don't care. And so it doesn't matter at

32:50

the end of the day. It's just a

32:52

really unfortunate thing because it's just like I know

32:55

it like a lot of them will say like

32:57

the Democrats are communists, which is as you know,

32:59

is a ridiculous thing to say. But

33:01

it's just so many people believe that. It's just

33:03

so many people will believe all these things these

33:06

people say, which. Yeah. And

33:08

then you go to them and you say, what are what

33:10

are some examples of communistic policies that Democrats have put

33:12

in place and they either have nothing or they name something

33:14

that's not communistic. But then it doesn't matter for a

33:16

lot of people having that moment where you go, you know

33:18

what? I can't think of anything

33:20

communistic they've done. It could trigger a

33:23

light bulb moment. Not for these people. Yeah,

33:26

I think ironically, I feel like the

33:28

Republican Party today has more in common

33:30

with the Chinese Communist Party than the

33:32

Democrats do in some

33:34

ways. In some ways, that's true.

33:36

But I don't think we

33:38

need to pull in communist analogies to

33:41

argue that MAGA Trumpism is bad of

33:43

its own accord. Yeah,

33:46

it makes sense. It's so all

33:48

right. Ty from Georgia. Great to hear

33:51

from you. Very much appreciated. Let's go

33:53

to Patrick from Los Angeles. Patrick from

33:55

Los Angeles. Welcome. Yes,

34:00

I can. So

34:03

I just, you know, I

34:06

feel like, okay, that debate

34:08

was tough to watch. Yes.

34:11

But I think that America has

34:13

such a short attention span that

34:16

it won't even matter. Honestly, I mean, it

34:19

had lower viewership than the last one. And

34:22

I just think in general, like, you

34:24

know, we're so quick to, we want our,

34:27

you know, we

34:29

want our quick store at 30 second videos.

34:31

That is not something that most of the

34:33

people are going to be watching. And

34:36

I just think it's getting blown way out of

34:38

proportion. And that's something that's unfortunate

34:40

that the mainstream media glums

34:43

on to. So it's possible

34:45

that you're right. And as

34:47

I've said, a poor debate

34:50

performance doesn't change the underlying structure

34:52

of the election with regard to

34:55

the economy, incumbency advantage. Really the

34:57

argument that Alan Lichtman lays out.

35:00

So as bad as the debate was, I

35:02

can't yet say for sure that it means

35:04

Biden can't win as crazy as it sounds

35:06

to say. Yeah, I

35:08

mean, it just is. I mean, it makes

35:10

more sense that, like, the

35:13

majority of the independents that are just

35:15

like, hey, it's either democracy or no

35:17

democracy. It's like, I don't care

35:19

if he even passes away two years

35:21

in. At least it will be

35:23

a democracy still. You know what I mean? Like, it

35:25

doesn't really make sense. It doesn't matter if he's 100

35:27

percent there. He's going to maintain

35:30

democracy. And that's what they should be running on

35:32

is literally like democracy or

35:34

authoritarian dictatorship. And

35:36

that's it. I agree with you that that's the choice

35:38

without a doubt. No. Anyway,

35:41

thank you. And happy Fourth of July.

35:43

All right, Patrick from L.A. Great to

35:45

hear from you. Let's

35:47

go to Dylan from Phoenix. Dylan

35:50

from Phoenix, Arizona. Welcome.

35:53

David. Good. Follow

35:56

along. Okay. Your

35:58

audio is doubled. Your audio is doubled. So I

36:00

don't know if something weirds going on or if

36:02

that's if it's some kind of sick joke that

36:04

you're playing on us. These

36:08

hold. It

36:11

disabled my headset. All right.

36:13

Now we've got one audio track of you. That's good.

36:19

All right. Go ahead, Dylan. OK.

36:22

And Dylan is gone. Very good. Let's

36:24

go next to Steven from New York.

36:27

Steven from New York. Welcome to the program.

36:30

What's on your mind today? Hello.

36:34

Can you hear me? You're on. Hi.

36:38

I've been a fan of your show for a while, so

36:40

thanks for all you do. This

36:42

is my first time here. Are

36:45

we specifically talking about the debate or can

36:47

we just know? No, no, no. Anything you

36:49

want wide open, wide open. OK,

36:51

cool. What do you

36:53

say to Republicans who in

36:56

a debate when you're

36:58

talking about, say, Trump's achievements, Republicans

37:01

will typically say, well, there was

37:03

no war under under

37:05

Trump. How do you respond to claims like

37:07

that? Because people love to say, oh, with Biden, we have

37:10

Ukraine, we have Israel and Hamas.

37:14

What do you say to that? It's pretty nice. So

37:16

there's a couple of different things. First of all, you

37:19

have to ask them what they even really mean by

37:21

that, because there were all sorts of wars all

37:23

over the place that the U.S. in indirect

37:26

ways is involved in and or

37:29

sometimes looks the other way on. All of these

37:31

are political acts. That's number one. Number

37:34

two, Trump did absolutely

37:36

nothing, nothing, nothing about

37:39

Russian incursion into other

37:42

parts of Ukraine that

37:44

predated Trump, even though

37:46

he claimed Putin was completely under control

37:48

and never would have invaded Ukraine. Russia

37:51

was in Ukraine while Trump was president,

37:53

just in different parts. Number two, we

37:56

were in Afghanistan under Trump and Trump promised to

37:58

get us out and he didn't it. And it

38:00

took Joe Biden coming in and getting us out

38:02

of Afghanistan as far as bombs,

38:05

rockets and drone warfare. Trump did a

38:08

ton of it. So, you know, you really have

38:10

to get them to define what they are talking

38:12

about. And then

38:14

at the end of the day, just repeating

38:16

that doesn't really tell you anything about whether

38:18

Trump did a good job, even if it

38:20

were true, which it's not. It doesn't actually

38:23

tell you whether Trump did a good job.

38:27

Right. I agree with that. Another

38:32

question I have is I

38:34

think a lot of well,

38:37

Stephen, you know what? Let's keep it to one

38:39

question because we have so many people waiting. I

38:41

really appreciate hearing from you, Stephen, from New York

38:43

and glad you were able to to get on

38:45

with me today. Let's go

38:47

to Aaron in Kyoto, Japan.

38:51

Also a website member. Aaron in

38:53

Japan. Welcome to the show. And

38:56

thanks for your support. Please unmute

38:58

yourself so that we can hear you. There

39:01

you are. How are you today, David? Doing

39:03

well. I'm

39:06

calling today with tears in my eyes

39:09

because your interview with Roy Swite was

39:11

purely magical, especially as a Minnesota myself.

39:14

Well, I appreciate that. Yeah, it got him into a little

39:17

bit of trouble, I guess. Yes,

39:19

so it was fantastic. You know that. So

39:22

but my question, though, is like

39:25

I live outside the United States. I don't

39:27

have much I don't have much exposure to

39:29

Kamala Harris. So I'm kind of wondering, like,

39:31

what's all the negativity around her? Like, all

39:33

that I really know is like she's a

39:35

cop in terms of like negative

39:37

stuff. But I like, yeah, do you do

39:39

you have any ideas or like direct information

39:41

to help me out? I think that her

39:44

public presence is not managed in a way

39:46

that makes her come off as super likable.

39:48

As some in the audience know, right before the State

39:51

of the Union, I was invited to go to D.C.

39:53

and have a meeting with a few other creators and

39:55

the vice president. She was extraordinarily smart. She was extraordinarily.

39:57

She was a great leader in the United States. personable

40:00

and likable. And it's a completely different

40:02

Kamala than the one that you normally

40:04

see on TV. So I think part

40:06

of it is sort of like a

40:09

reputation management aspect to it. I

40:11

don't think that sort of like the

40:13

best things for her to

40:15

work on are necessarily being delegated to her

40:17

by the Biden administration. So I think that

40:20

may be a factor. But you

40:22

make a good point, which is why is

40:24

it that her reputation isn't better and her

40:27

approval and favorability aren't super high? I

40:29

believe it's that the public facing

40:31

version of her is not managed

40:33

to give the best impression. OK,

40:39

thank you so much. And I wish you and

40:41

the family the best. All right, Aaron in Kyoto.

40:44

Great to hear from you. Let's go

40:46

to Brett in Chicago. Also

40:48

a Web site member. Thanks for your support on the

40:50

Web site, Brett. And what's on your

40:52

mind? Of course,

40:54

David. Good to be here. I

40:57

wanted to ask you if you

40:59

have any strong opinions on Chicago style pizza,

41:01

if you've been around here and if you

41:03

have a few of tried the

41:06

different places. Are you talking about deep dish?

41:09

Of course, talking about the dish. I don't

41:11

like it. I figured that you

41:14

know why. Hold

41:16

on. Let's explore that. Why would you

41:18

assume I don't like deep dish pizza?

41:22

Well, I've heard you talk

41:24

about the benefits of turkey bacon before

41:26

and your general liberal

41:28

diet like the the the

41:30

heft of Chicago style pizza.

41:32

No, listen, I reject that

41:34

completely, Brett. Let me tell

41:36

you what. Are

41:39

you familiar with Argentinian style pizza?

41:42

I am not OK. Argentinian

41:45

pizza is very heavy. There's

41:48

pies that are loaded with, you know,

41:50

a kilo of mozzarella. It

41:53

is not the heft that bothers me. It's

41:56

really two things. Every deep

41:58

dish Chicago pizza. I had in Chicago now.

42:01

Now, I know everybody's it'll be all Jordan

42:03

Peterson. You don't like Chicago pizza because you've

42:05

never had real Chicago. It's like you what

42:07

you're saying what Peterson says is wrong because

42:09

you don't really understand it. No, listen, I

42:11

went to Chicago. I had the pizza. Here's

42:13

the thing. The cheese

42:15

to crust ratio is

42:18

completely out of whack. The

42:20

cheese to sauce ratio is

42:22

completely out of whack. And

42:24

I really would recommend Chicago

42:26

Explore Argentinian style pizza. And

42:30

then perhaps a Detroit style might be another option that

42:32

you might want to check out. You know, I did

42:34

try Detroit style pizza when I went to Netroots Nation

42:36

up there. I don't remember much about it. I think

42:38

it was like sort of fine. OK,

42:42

that's that's fair. Just one quick thing

42:44

I heard from a like a Republican

42:47

leaning or right leaning subreddit somewhere.

42:49

Yeah. Project 2025. People are saying

42:51

that Trump hasn't

42:56

actually said anything like directly linking him

42:58

to it. It's like a Heritage Foundation

43:00

thing. And like how

43:02

how strongly do we know

43:04

of the link between the

43:07

Heritage Foundation, Project 2025 and

43:09

like the second Trump term? Trump

43:12

has indicated that

43:15

he will do things that are in

43:17

Project 2025 in terms

43:19

of replacing career bureaucrats with political

43:21

activists, retribution, all these different things.

43:23

So it's fine to say Trump

43:26

hasn't said I love Project 2025

43:28

by name, but he's

43:31

made it clear that his

43:33

agenda will be very much

43:35

simpatico with Project 2025. OK,

43:37

well, perfect. Thank you very much, David. All

43:39

right. Brett from Chicago. Great

43:41

to hear from you. Let's

43:44

go to a break. We did calls.

43:47

It went OK. I don't think it's going to come

43:49

back to be a regular feature on the show,

43:51

much to the pleasure of, I think, the

43:53

majority of the audience. But we did it.

43:56

We heard from some people. We

43:58

will do it again sometime. time, just not every

44:01

week. All right. So let's take

44:03

a very quick break and the show will continue. And

44:31

so it's an opportunity to react and respond

44:33

to what is on some of people's minds.

44:35

Of course, you can always email info

44:38

at David Pakman Dotcom. And

44:41

we start with Lee. Lee

44:43

is very much unhappy with me and wrote

44:46

in from the U.K. to tell me so.

44:49

Lee says in

44:51

an email titled clowns fake news,

44:53

Lee says, David Pakman, your opinion

44:55

is not fit for purpose and

44:58

you should not been on TV from

45:01

UK resident with a brain and

45:03

a nose for bull s. Now

45:05

in the future, we'll be able to say the full

45:07

word when we're not on radio and TV.

45:10

You know, it's a tragic, tragic thing

45:12

to me that even

45:14

people in other countries

45:17

say, you know what I'm going to do

45:19

with my day? I'm going

45:21

to write to that guy in the United States

45:23

who talks about politics. I've said

45:25

before, I used to sometimes

45:28

get mad and reactive when people would write

45:30

me this stuff. And then

45:32

I would really think about what must be

45:34

going on in their lives, that they choose

45:37

to do this. And then

45:39

I get sad and I end up just kind of

45:41

feeling bad for these folks. That's where I land. Same

45:44

thing would apply to Cleve. Cleve

45:46

wrote to me about the topic lefty

45:49

and says David Pakman is

45:51

such a smug, arrogant,

45:54

condescending dolt. He

45:56

can't even define what a woman

45:58

is. leftist. You

46:00

know, they think it's

46:02

a real gotcha to say,

46:05

define a woman. Oh, you can't do it. Now,

46:07

if Cleve knew anything about about me, he'd

46:09

know. I've talked about what we

46:12

mean by woman and how

46:14

it's affected by context. It is a

46:16

different thing to say who is a

46:18

woman in a medical setting versus

46:21

who is a woman socially versus

46:23

what about if someone is trying to

46:25

bring a claim of gender discrimination. These

46:28

are all different questions. Now,

46:30

I've said also we on the

46:32

left shouldn't shy away from these conversations. But

46:34

the fact that no matter what we say,

46:36

they go, you guys won't even

46:38

define woman. Have you

46:40

listened to the many conversations I've

46:43

had about this, including, for example,

46:45

on the trigger nomatry show? Anyway,

46:47

I don't know that Cleve necessarily

46:51

is seriously thinking about this issue.

46:53

All right. One more from the

46:55

sort of whacked out stuff before

46:57

we get into more. And that

46:59

is a guy who has himself

47:01

holding a fish in his profile

47:04

picture saying you're an idiot with

47:06

multiple mistakes here. It's the wrong

47:08

your Y.O. you are. It

47:11

should say an idiot. And also

47:14

idiot is wrongly and randomly capitalized

47:16

in the middle of a sentence.

47:18

So, listen, I know we have

47:20

an educational problem here in this

47:22

country. I know we

47:24

have a lot of problems here

47:26

in this country. But can we

47:28

stop with the morons calling other

47:30

people idiots? And I'm so sorry

47:32

to use that term pejoratively, but

47:34

this guy is the last person.

47:36

One, two, three, I guess four

47:38

errors in a three word

47:41

sentence. And I guess five, if you include

47:43

missing punctuation, although I guess I won't hold

47:45

them to it. Listen,

47:47

maybe just think about what you can

47:49

do to improve your own life rather

47:51

than trying to bother me. All right.

47:53

Now, more substantively, let's get into a

47:57

post from Condescending

47:59

Bench. on the

48:01

sub Reddit. If Trump loses

48:03

again, will he be

48:05

more successful or less

48:08

successful in his attempts to claim

48:10

fraud and stir up hostility

48:12

and or violence? I get that his

48:14

followers will believe and do whatever he

48:16

says no matter what. But

48:18

I'm curious, what will it look like this time around? A

48:21

lot has happened in the last four years, including

48:23

some loss of support from people due

48:25

to January 6th and his fraud claims, as

48:28

well as Trump being overwhelmed by legal troubles

48:30

since this is his last chance at the

48:32

presidency. He has nothing left to lose. Plus

48:34

he and his sycophants have the benefit of

48:36

hindsight. Curious to hear what you think. I

48:40

am extraordinarily concerned about

48:42

Trump attempting to move

48:44

his followers to violence if he loses

48:46

in November. I think a

48:49

lot of his followers are willing to

48:51

do violence. But here's the one maybe

48:54

naive caveat. I

48:56

think that many of his followers, if Trump

48:58

loses again, will realize it's

49:00

time to hang it up. They'll

49:03

know what happened to many of the January

49:05

6th rioters. They'll know that

49:07

none of it worked to get the election

49:09

stolen by Trump. They'll know

49:11

this is it for Trump because of his age.

49:14

And it just seems like this would be it. I

49:17

think that that hopefully would

49:19

keep some of the

49:21

Trump supporters from actually going

49:23

out and doing violence. A

49:26

lot of people were convinced that Trump wasn't

49:28

going to show up to the debate last

49:30

week like Gracie, who said Trump will never

49:32

show up. He will back out saying the

49:35

debate is rigged or some other lame excuse.

49:38

Trump showed up. And I know a lot of you

49:40

in my audience were convinced that he would not. But

49:43

he did. He lied his way

49:45

through the entire thing and

49:47

benefited significantly from Joe Biden

49:49

having a terrible debate performance.

49:52

But he did show up. And to be

49:54

frank, I think because Trump's perception is now

49:56

that he did so well against Biden. I

50:00

assume Trump will be excited for

50:02

a second debate, the details of

50:04

which the details of which are

50:07

still being worked out. So he

50:09

was there. He definitely showed up. Carol

50:11

said, David, I would like to

50:13

see someone show a Trump

50:15

speech from 2016 and compare it

50:19

to one of his speeches from the last few

50:21

weeks. It really shows he is deteriorating. Margaret

50:23

responded by saying, look at a major speech

50:25

from each year starting in 2016 to see

50:28

the dementia progression. Listen, there is no question

50:30

that if you look at consecutive Trump speeches

50:33

over the last five, ten, fifteen, twenty years,

50:35

he wasn't doing speeches 20 years ago, but

50:37

TV appearances, he has deteriorated

50:39

significantly. We have also now seen

50:41

that Joe Biden, outside of the

50:43

10 to four working hours that

50:45

the White House through Axios

50:47

says are his best hours,

50:50

has also experienced some deterioration. What

50:53

Trump is experiencing and what Biden

50:55

is experiencing are certainly different things.

50:58

But there is no doubt that if you

51:00

look at speeches of Trump's overtime, it

51:03

is a different Trump. It is a

51:05

different Trump. Jimmy wrote in and

51:08

says about stupidity in the current

51:10

media. How about a show on

51:13

how an in an idiot

51:15

inbred is actually a political

51:17

commentator? I think Jimmy means me and

51:20

the lowering of standards all

51:22

across the board of the

51:25

Sohatora administration and

51:27

his sidekick criminal liar,

51:29

pedophile, Shmo. Biden, how

51:31

much did you have to blow the

51:33

producer to get your show? Let

51:39

me say this once and only

51:41

once. I

51:44

own the show. No

51:46

one gives me the show and

51:48

there's no one person who can

51:51

fire me. Now, everybody

51:53

could stop listening. Everybody

51:55

could stop watching and make it so

51:57

I'm a guy in a room by

51:59

myself, which is Horrible, obviously, as you

52:02

can imagine. But there

52:04

is no person out there who gives

52:07

me the show. And

52:09

it's a very tired and lame

52:11

narrative. Chris Howard writes Trump is

52:14

dominating the swing states that matter.

52:16

I don't know what the purpose is of

52:18

reporting national polls with Biden winning since our electoral

52:21

college is all that matters. And

52:23

Trump has Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Arizona

52:25

and Pennsylvania locked in. Trump will

52:27

win in November. Chris,

52:30

you're extraordinarily confident and

52:33

confident people have been wrong many,

52:35

many, many

52:38

times before. Write

52:40

in info at David Pakman dot com.

52:43

Get the free, completely

52:45

free Project 20,

52:47

25 white paper at

52:50

David pakman.com/Project 20, 25.

52:53

And remember that you can get

52:55

all of my children's books, including

52:58

most recently Think Like a Voter,

53:00

a perfect book for an election

53:02

year at David pakman.com/book. I

53:04

will see you on the bonus show. I hope

53:06

that you have a great Fourth of July holiday if

53:09

you are doing anything for it. And we will be

53:11

back.