← The David Pakman Show
Loading summary
Transcript115 lines
- [00:00]
David Pakman
Donald Trump and MAGA are staring down three elections today that they are almost certainly going to lose. This includes the New York City mayoral race, Virginia gubernatorial and New Jersey gubernatorial. These are not close. We're also going to look at Prop 50 in California. This could be a total rejection of Donald Trump's agenda. Trump is so furious about the New York situation that he is now threatening to cripple New York City if voters pick the wrong mayor. The President doing mob style threats geared towards American cities. We're also going to meet the people that Trump just kicked off of Food Assistance. Millions losing SNAP benefits as food prices go up. And now partial benefits may be restored. We are going to keep raising money for Feeding America. The need is real all of November. Every new website membership and substack paid memberships. First payment will be donated to Feeding America. Day one. We got 33 new members. We've raised fourteen twenty six dollars in donations for Feeding America. One dollar funds ten meals. So you all have just raised fourteen thousand meals for hungry people. Check out join packman.com and substack. David pakman.com we will also look at CBS caught editing the Donald Trump 60 Minutes interview to protect him. And the DOJ official is now admitting Trump should have been put in jail when they found all of those classified documents at Mar a Lago. The mainstream media is finally talking about Donald Trump's swollen eye. What took them so long? What a show today. Let's record this one. It might actually be worth keeping.
- [02:02]
Aaron Parnas
Today.
- [02:03]
David Pakman
November 4, 2025 could go down as really one of the most crushing defeats for Donald Trump and the MAGA movement, certainly since he won in 2024. But maybe even beyond that, there are three major races across the country. There's the New York City, city mayoral, and all of this could really deliver what? I don't think we can call it anything other than a devastating rebuke to Trump ism and MAGA ism. And in a lot of these, the polling is not even close. So let's go through it piece by piece. We have Proposition 50 in California spearheaded by Governor Gavin Newsom. The idea here is to fight fire with fire. Republicans are redrawing maps in Texas and in other places to try to win more seats in 2026. Desperate to keep control of the House of Representatives, Gavin Newsom had an idea. We're going to fight fire with fire, but we will let the people vote. And so Gavin Newsom putting similar partizan redistricting up to the vote of the people of California. It is leading Although there are some who say it could end up closer. The yes is winning in the polls, but it could end up closer than some believe. So we have that in California. We have the New York City mayoral election where socialist Democratic candidate Zoran Mamdani is almost certainly going to win. I know that there is discussion of polls tightening, but as you can see here, these are the Kalsheep betting markets steadily having Mamdani around 90%. Now, yes, he was a little higher previously and even got above 90 and is down, you know, a fraction of a point. But overwhelmingly seeming like Mamdani is going to win based on the Kalshee betting markets. Polling also shows him leading by roughly 10 in an average of recent polls. And his lead has been double digits for a long time. In the 60 Minutes interview on Sunday, Donald Trump sort of softly endorsed Andrew Cuomo, saying he would take a bad Democrat over a communist any day. So that will almost certainly be a loss for Trump and for maga. We then go to Virginia where former Congresswoman Abigail Spanberger is likely to become Virginia's first female governor. She's doing it by crushing Trump's influence in a state that has really been trending Republican, but is sort of a bellwether in a sense. Spanbergers leading by 11 points. Washington Post shows her up 12 points. Multiple polls with a double digit advantage. Now, Trump did hold a telephone rally for the Republican Winsome Earl Sears. He didn't formally endorse her, which is sort of weird. And in that call, Trump did a lot of attacking of Abigail Spanberger, encouraged people to vote Republican down ballot, but he didn't even mention winsome's Earl Sears by name, which is, it's just weird. And this is sort of like how toxic the Trump brand has become even for some of his own party's candidates. And then super important again, Virginia does have this historical kind of bellwether status where Virginia can signal how are voters feeling about the party controlling the White House. And for decades, Virginia has elected governors from the opposite party of the sitting president. And if you look at what Trump's federal workforce, what Trump's cuts to the federal workforce have done in Virginia, it's terrible for Republicans. Virginia has 320,000 federal workers that live there. Many of them work in D.C. live in Virginia. Trump's been doing these mass firings. The got the, the government shutdown has devastated a lot of those workers and a lot of them are in Virginia. So I expect Spanberger to win. I expect her to win easily. Voters are going to Send a message which is, Trump's policies are bad for us. We're not going to vote for Trump aligned people. We then go to New Jersey. A Navy veteran and former federal prosecutor, Mikey Sherrill is on track to become New Jersey's next governor. And this would be another blow to Trump's political influence. Trump has sort of as a, as a New York adjacent state, Trump has attempted to, and to some degree successfully wielded influence in New Jersey even before he was a political figure. And right now we see Cheryl leading by eight points in the final Quinnipiac poll, 51 to 43. Fox News has her up seven points. She led all through October and now into November. Trump did formally endorse her opponent, Jack Satter, Cittarelli Chitterelli. I never, I'm sure is it sitting Citarelli or Cittarelli did a telephone rally for him on last night and mocked Cheryl's name, saying, I've never heard of a woman named Mikey, but maybe she'll be the last. Classic Trump. Not exactly winning on the substance, not exactly winning on policy, but attacking a woman's name, it's not working. I don't believe it is going to work. She leads, Cheryl leads on just about every issue in New Jersey. On cost of living by plus 8, voters think she would be better on taxes plus 9, energy costs plus 10, health care, plus 16. It's just about every important issue. Now, we have interviewed all three of these candidates, Mikey Sherrill, Abigail Spangler Spamberger and Zoran Mamdani. We've also interviewed Governor Gavin Newsom about Prop 50. So check out all of those videos on my YouTube channel to get more information about what's going on, what they're offering, what they're going for. These are elections that are not happening in a vacuum. This, it really is a referendum on Trump's presidency. The verdict is looking devastating. And my expectation now, we're not going to put the cart before the horse. We're not going to count our chickens before they hatch. I am not going to sign on the dotted line before the contract has been fully printed out. I don't know what other metaphors I can come up with, but we will be live tonight, 8pm Eastern, 5pm Pacific, with the results. And if the results comport with the polling, my expectation is that tomorrow, Maybe even at 2am tonight, you are going to start to see a panic from the Republican Party because they all know the way the results are pointing would point poorly for Republicans in terms of the House in 26 and if Republicans lose the House in 26, Trump's presidency is dead. Dead. He will get nothing else done other than negative things. He might be able to bomb people, but he's not going to be able to get any legislation passed. So expect Republicans to go into panic mode if the results tonight hold in relation to what the polling says so far. Donald Trump is so triggered by the possibility that Democratic nominee Zoran Mamdani, who joined me yesterday, will win the mayoral election tonight in New York City that he is now thinking threatening New York City, saying he will crush the city if Mamdani wins. Nothing says Make America great Again. America first. Patriot President. Nothing says Patriot President more than threatening to deliberately hurt the American city in which you grew up if they vote for the wrong person. Here is Donald Trump's post to Truth Social quote, quote if Communist candidate Zoran Mamdani wins the election for mayor of New York City, it is highly unlikely that I will be contributing federal funds other than the very minimum as required to my beloved first home because of the fact that as a communist, this once great city has zero chance of success or even survival. It can only get worse with a communist at the helm and I don't want to send his president good money after bad. It is my obligation to run the nation and it is my strong conviction that New York City will be a complete and total economic and social disaster should Mamdani win. His principles have been tested for over a thousand years and never once have they been successful. I would much rather see a Democrat who has a record of success win than a Communist with no experience and a record of complete and total failure. He was nothing as an assemblyman, ranked at the bottom of the class and as mayor of potentially again the greatest city in the world, he has no chance to bring it back to its former glory. We must also remember this. A vote for Curtis Sliwa, who looks much better without the beret, is a vote for Mamdani. Whether you personally like Andrew Cuomo or not, you really have no choice. You must vote for him and hope he does a fantastic job. He is capable of it. Mamdani is not. One thing New Yorkers don't like is being told you have no choice but to x. New Yorkers don't like that and Trump is trying to come up with anything he can to affect the results. Now I would not be surprised if the mayoral ends up being closer, closer than some expect. I wouldn't be shocked if rather than an 11 point margin of victory for Mamdani, it's five that that wouldn't come as a huge surprise, but it really does look like he is simply going to win. And what the president here is saying is if you vote for somebody I don't like, I'm going to try to make your city collapse. It is mob3 threat style behavior. It is not leadership. And he's not even pretending to be neutral. He's not even saying vote Republican. He's saying pick the candidate that I approve of or your city dies. Now I know that there are many people in my audience yesterday I did an interview with Zoran Mamdani. Just about everybody hated the interview. I had people write to me and say, David, why did you critique any aspect of his proposals? Why were you doing that? Well, because I'm asking him about his proposals. What do you want me to do? And others said, why did you platform him at all? He's the wrong direction for the Democratic Party. Well, he's the Democratic nominee and I interview candidates here. I don't know why this is such a difficult thing for some to understand. There are very strong females feelings about Mamdani. I've said before, I'm not a social. He's not a communist, he's a socialist. I'm not a socialist. I don't expect if he enacts socialist policies for New York to improve. I don't expect that. But that's my view. I am a social Democrat. That's a form of capitalism. He gets to try it if he wins. And if voters decide that's what they want, then they get to try it and then we evaluate. It's like anybody else. So I think that there are going to be a lot of people, honestly, no matter the results, there are going to be some people who are thrilled and some people who are absolutely furious. But voters get to decide and then you try stuff and then you evaluate. But I will crush your city as president if you vote for the wrong guy. I don't think so. I don't think so. That is a very dangerous direction for the country to go and I think Trump means it. To be frank. Let me know what you expect. Make sure to like this video and hit the subscribe button. I hope you'll join me Tonight starting at 8 Eastern for election results. I love our partnership with Wild Alaskan Company. They do sustainable seafood memberships and bring high quality wild caught Alaskan seafood right to your door. Every filet you get is 100% wild, never farmed, sourced from well managed fisheries in Alaska. You get better flavor and texture. But you're also helping to preserve these ecosystems. They freeze everything at the peak of freshness. It gets to you vacuum sealed. I got a box that had everything from crab fish fillets, scallops, salmon burgers which were absolutely delicious. So elevate your meals, support sustainable fishing and enjoy seafood the way it should be. Go to wildalaskin.com pacman Use code PAKMAN for $35 off your first box. The link is in the description. The David Pakman show remains an audience funded program. This month we are donating every new member's first payment to Feeding America to try to do something about the growing food insecurity in this country. You can sign up on my website. Join pacman.com whether you get a monthly or yearly membership, the first payment will be donated to Feeding America. Every dollar funds 10 meals. We will also donate first payments from Substack premium subscriptions@substack.david pakman.com I will get you an update on our progress with the fundraiser a little bit later on in the show. All right, listen, I know that a couple hundred bucks a month for food is not a lot of money to Donald Trump. I know it's not a lot of money to a lot of his elite friends. But those couple hundred bucks are the difference between eating and not eating for a lot of people. We have examples from News Nation, from CNN and from other networks of people who receive food stamp benefits and explaining how this is going to crush them. Here is an individual whose 44 year old son has special needs and this is absolutely crushing. What is happening with food stamps.
- [16:32]
Single Father on SNAP
Well, my son Bradley is 44 years old, functions at about a two year old level, requires round the clock medical attention. So that lands on me. I'm a single father in my 60s and I got him on SNAP about five years ago. He has a SSI income and that qualified him for SNAP. SNAP initially gave him about $260 a month which fed him. That's dropped in the last year to about $120. And now of course that's gone. The, the, the, the issue with it is less a matter of the money, how much it is and more a matter of the security side of it. I could count on that because I have to make up any difference. So now I've got to go out find additional work to supplement the income because you know that's, that's not that money is, is really needs to be raised.
- [17:38]
David Pakman
Does that sound like someone who is leeching and defrauding the government? That's someone who depends on this money, here is another individual, a woman from Georgia speaking on cnn explaining what the SNAP benefits mean for her household.
- [17:59]
Woman from Georgia on SNAP
Well, Sarah, I'm very scared because I rely heavily on SNAP benefits to feed myself. You know, prior years I was able to do it myself. But living on a fixed income, the price of food is going sky high. My SNAP benefits don't go as far as they used to. And now that Congress has and the government has delayed our, you know, SNAP benefits, it scares me. I don't know how much longer I can last. I did stockpile some, but that's not going to go very far.
- [18:37]
Interviewer
How much money were you receiving in SNAP benefits and what will you do to try to replace that to supplement that?
- [18:48]
Woman from Georgia on SNAP
Seniors only get $23 a month in SNAP benefits. And to make that last as much as I can, I have to shop for Bogos, I have to shop for sales. I never buy meats full price. I have to buy them, you know, reduced.
- [19:07]
David Pakman
Not exactly the stories of people living large on the government dole, as many would have you believe. We have endless examples of this. Here's another.
- [19:19]
Aaron Parnas
From having everything and having nothing.
- [19:23]
Interviewer 2
Joseph Cribbing recently fell on hard times.
- [19:26]
Aaron Parnas
Saying he applied for SNAP just for.
- [19:28]
David Pakman
The first time two months ago. And they did award me food stamps, which I was very grateful for. But when benefits didn't arrive, he found.
- [19:35]
Aaron Parnas
Help from his neighbors instead.
- [19:37]
Donald Trump
When you find yourself on the other.
- [19:39]
Aaron Parnas
End of that, I don't know.
- [19:46]
Donald Trump
We.
- [19:46]
Aaron Parnas
All need each other.
- [19:48]
Donald Trump
Yeah.
- [19:48]
David Pakman
Go from this is, this is heartbreaking stuff. I just have one more and then I want to dig in to the policy here.
- [19:56]
Interviewer
You doing right now?
- [20:00]
SNAP Recipient
Well, I'm pretty stressed out. I have to decide whether to put gas in my car or buy something to eat today.
- [20:07]
Interviewer
What does that like for you when you wake up in the morning and realize that those are the choices you're making?
- [20:15]
SNAP Recipient
I mean, I just feel like no matter how hard I'm trying to, to come up in the world, it just doesn't matter. Like I just keep getting held down. I just need a little leg up and, you know, I'm five years in recovery and I've gone to school, I've done all these things and I'm trying to work and I'm trying to open a business and I just need a little more help and I can't get it and.
- [20:38]
David Pakman
All right, so listen, I think we get it. These are, these are stories about people who are hungry right now. And if there is going to be any respite, maybe it will come because now it seems as though it's going to take a while, but the federal government is going to try to reinstate half of the benefits. So the elderly woman we helped, we heard from, who gets $23 a month, I guess is going to get 1150, but it's going to take a little while. This is the United States, folks. This is the United States and this is what is going on. And you know, we've done these stories about how being very wealthy changes your brain on some level. I don't, I really don't think someone like Trump can understand or compute. How could on average $200 a month in benefits be the difference between eating and not eating? That's never been Trump's situation. He, he's almost 80 and he was born into wealth. And it is inconceivable that someone could be in that situation. Now, a lot of you wrote in saying you want to help. As I've said, the audience is the most powerful part of the show. So once again, what we are doing this month, every new website membership and new substack paid membership. This month, we are donating the entire first payment to Feeding America since I announced this 24 hours ago. We're starting 33 new members. 14 $26 will be going to Feeding America. $1 funds 10 meals. So in the last 24 hours, you in my audience have funded 14,260 meals. Now, some of you said, I'm already a member. What can I do? No problem. We have a backlog of 3,800 people waiting for free memberships that they can't afford them. If you go to, if you have a membership and you go to join pacman.com as you check out, there is a button that says this is a gift. If you check that, the money will still count towards the Feeding America donation and then the membership will be given to someone on the list. Okay, why Feeding America? Really efficient charity. 98% of donations go to feeding people, 2% goes to overhead, and $1 funds 10 meals. So meanwhile, you know, Trump has the 6 billion he could use to feed 42 million Americans. He doesn't want to do it. Courts are saying it's illegal. You've got to do it. And now it seems as though, seems as though they are going to be be reinstating half of the benefits. Let's see if that happens. Last year, Donald Trump sued CBS for 20 billion, claiming that they deceptively edited Kamala Harris's interview to make her look better and that it hurt him and helped her in the campaign. Fast forward to Today, November of 2025, and CBS just did the exact same thing, but this time they did it for Trump. CBS has now released the full transcript of Trump's 60 Minutes interview from Sunday. And fascinatingly, there are blockbuster things that were filmed. They're in the transcript, but a bunch of it was left out of the TV broadcast and the extended online version. Some of the stuff was cut only from the TV broadcast, and it is in the online version. Here is some of the stuff that was cut, which I believe is critical to understanding the truly depraved nature of Trump in 2025.
- [24:24]
Donald Trump
60 Minutes paid me a lot of money. And you don't have to put this on because I don't want to embarrass you, and I'm sure you're not. But 60 Minutes was forced to pay me a lot of money because they took her answer out. That was so bad. It was election changing two nights before the election, and they put a new answer in and they paid me a lot of money for that. You can't have fake news. You've got to have legit news. You have a great. I think you have a great new leader, frankly, because the young woman that's leading your whole enterprise is a great. From what I know, I don't know her, but I hear she's a great person. I think one of the best things that happened is this show and new ownership, CBS and new ownership. I think it's the greatest thing that's happened in a long time to a free and open and good press.
- [25:10]
Interviewer 2
Well, certainly.
- [25:10]
Donald Trump
You tell me how big a difference is DC now compared to what it was a year ago, Right? I mean, you have to be honest with me. People walk. People in the White House, they walk up to me. Young ladies I've never seen. Sir, thank you very much. I know. They don't even have to tell me what they're thanking me for. One girl said I'd get into Uber and I felt dangerous. Even in Uber, they'd attack the car. Okay? It wasn't even safe then. Sir. I now walk to work every sir day. And I walk. I'm so safe. There's nothing going to happen. 100% safe. And you know that, too.
- [25:44]
Interviewer
Nora, I want to ask you about.
- [25:45]
Donald Trump
You live here. You know that, too.
- [25:46]
Interviewer
I want to ask you about. You see a difference, American cities, difference in Washington, D.C. i think I've been working too hard. I haven't been out and about.
- [25:54]
Donald Trump
That's not a fair answer.
- [25:55]
Interviewer
You see, I get in my car and go to work and I go home.
- [25:58]
Donald Trump
You don't have to use that one. Don't worry.
- [25:59]
Interviewer
What's your message to those on the left and the right who would seek to commit acts of violence?
- [26:05]
Donald Trump
Well, I think primarily on the left, a little bit of both, but I think primarily on the left, I think they have to tone it down. I think they have to approve the shutdown. So it's not shut down. I think it's very bad what they're doing anyway.
- [26:17]
David Pakman
All of this stuff, Trump just seems deranged. It was all scrubbed, scrubbed either from both or one version. Okay, understand what is happening now at cbs. Since the settlement and merger, CBS has totally overhauled. They created this ombudsman role filled by a right wing policy wonk named Kenneth Weinstein to evaluate bias complaints that was required as a merger condition. They've appointed Bari Weiss, this right leaning pundit critical of Woke culture, as the network's new head. They've done multiple rounds of layoffs and now they are helping Trump by scrubbing critical elements of the interview. Now, Senate Majority Leader, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called it out on X. He said, hey, maybe I should file a complaint with the FCC against the Trump White House for editing his unhinged 60 Minutes interview. It's the same language Trump used when he sued Vice President Harris. Trump accused CBS of editing an interview to help his opponent look better. He sued them for 20 billion and they paid him 16 million. Their parent company needed his administration's approval for this merger. He gave it. And now you've got CBS editing his interviews the way he wants them edited, removing his own, bragging about the payout, scrubbing controversial content about pardoning a convicted criminal he doesn't know anything about and doesn't even know who they are. He is now the beneficiary of the same thing that he sued for when, when he believed Harris was the beneficiary of the same. And is anyone going to say anything? No, they are not. We have an absolutely stunning but also obvious revelation when the classified documents were found at Donald Trump's house in Florida and Justice Department officials and FBI went in there and gathered everything up. And we now know that a Justice Department official said at the time, if we found this at anyone's house but Trump's, the person would be immediately arrested and put in jail. But that didn't happen because it was Trump and Trump did not get arrested and he did not get put in jail. The Washington Post's Aaron Davis and former Washington Post Reporter Carol Leonig wrote a piece for msnbc.com and they write about when the FBI found hundreds of top secret documents at Donald Trump's house in his office. They were in his bathroom. They were in his shower. And Julie Edelstein was the Justice Department's top expert on the mishandling of classified records at the time. And she said then, if it was anybody else, we would arrest him tomorrow. Now, Trump and MAGA say it was all political. It was nonsense. It was just to attack Trump because they didn't like Trump. Trump says, oh, the DOJ owes me $230 million for the investigation. That, as he says, never should have happened. And yet DOJ officials at the time said, this is so serious and so egregious and there are so many documents involved that if it were anyone other than this guy, they would be arrested and jailed pending trial. Now, this is one of those funny media stories. On the one hand, it's an explosive headline. Wow. President should be jailed according to a DOJ official. That's incredible. On the other hand, it's so obvious to all of us that were it not for Trump's elite position in society and the fact that he was a former president at the time, of course he would have been jailed for what he did. He would have been immediately arrested as the FBI recovered those documents. Not allowed to be. Wherever Trump was, Trump was flying around. He was. I don't remember where he was. Was he in Bedminster playing golf or whatever? He wasn't at Mar A Lago. It's obvious that that's what would have happened to anybody else. And we say this all the time, but this is just more proof. There are two justice systems. There is one for regular people, and then there's one for Donald Trump. If you had a classified document or I had a classified document in my desk drawer down here, we would be negotiating a plea deal from a holding cell. Or if not, it would have been because we put up some serious bail money to get out of jail. Every time Trump gets caught, the story rarely is, oh, he broke the rules. He breaks the rules all the time. That's not the news. It's the rules don't seem to apply to Donald Trump. And the media treats it like a political spat. Well, both sides accuse each other of mishandling documents. Trump had his Mar A Lago documents. Joe Biden had some documents in his garage. But of course, that's incredibly dishonest. Joe Biden had a few documents he clearly didn't know about. And as soon as he found out about it, he didn't even go. He directed his attorneys find the documents, return the documents, cooperate with the doj. He didn't call it a witch hunt. Trump did the opposite. Trump directed documents be moved. Trump insisted it was a witch hunt. Trump tried not to give them back. Trump tried to get them back after they were taken. Different rules for elites and non elites and different rules for Democrats and Republicans. We need a change here. The the culture of corruption and cronyism has to change. When it was time for a new mattress, I didn't want to gamble on something generic. I had heard about Helix. I liked that they customize the mattress based on how you sleep. I'm mostly a stomach sleeper, so I took the quiz and ended up with a model that felt tailored to me. I've had it for years. What I notice is I don't wake up with back stiffness. I don't wake up with shoulder pain. I don't toss and turn looking for a comfortable position. It's just better than my old mattress. It's more supportive, but it's still comfortable. Another thing I like about Helix is that there's no one size fits all approach. It's really tailored to you in terms of firmness as well. It's made a difference for me and I'm thrilled to be partnering with them. Helix is giving my audience 25% off site wide. Go to helix sleep.com/pacman the link is in the description. I had a great conversation on Substack Live with Aaron Parness, who has I don't even know how many millions of followers at this point. We're going to check it out now. And remember that you can actually watch these live on my substack, which you can sign up for for free@substack. David Pakman it is great to be.
- [33:03]
Interviewer 2
Back on Substack Live with Aaron Parnas.
- [33:07]
David Pakman
Who is rapidly building his followers as.
- [33:11]
Interviewer 2
Quickly as his accolades is. Is that fair to say these days? Aaron?
- [33:15]
Aaron Parnas
I mean, maybe a little bit. Huh? It's good to be here.
- [33:20]
Interviewer 2
I. I always have so many things I want to talk to you about, but I want to start with when you do the videos from the airplane.
- [33:28]
Aaron Parnas
Yeah.
- [33:29]
Interviewer 2
Is that, is there a performative element of that? Because I love the look of it and like, is it. Is it urgent to do it from the airplane or to some degree. Do you like being in the bathroom and recording the updates?
- [33:43]
Aaron Parnas
No, I actually hate being in the bathroom recording updates. It really. I mean, there is an urgency sense to it because Oftentimes I'm on these flights because I travel cross country to see my wife's family in LA all the time. And so these are like five, six hour flights. So if I go five, six hours without providing an update, then people are gonna be like, is he dead? Like, what happened? And then at the same time, the news cycle does not stop. And so the option is either A, record from my seat and bother people, or B, get up and go use the bathroom and record from there. I will say I recently was on a flight and recorded from my seat and then said like the word bomb and everyone looked at me and it was. It was a bit of a problem, but.
- [34:20]
Interviewer 2
And you're using the airplane WI fi to post this stuff?
- [34:24]
Aaron Parnas
Yeah, yeah, it works. I mean, it's slow, so, like it'll take 20 minutes to post a video, but it works. It does the trick.
- [34:31]
Interviewer 2
You know, one of the things that. Speaking more seriously, for my second book, I'm writing a lot about these algorithmically based platforms. And if you're a creator, obviously you're sort of beholden to these algorithms. But I also am going to make the argument that even just users of social media, in a sense, are also beholden to them. People are curating their vacation pictures and okay, fine, but you and I are creators, so that's the relevance to us. There is this Publisher Parish thing that often you hear in academia, which it.
- [35:03]
David Pakman
Does apply to us.
- [35:04]
Interviewer 2
And it's like, this isn't about, like, oh, we're not pretending to be doing what the Trump family does, which is like, we're the biggest victims in the world and the most aggrieved people. And. But, but there is a degree to which you kind of have to continue putting the content out. And especially for, for one person shops or small shops, it does get to.
- [35:23]
Aaron Parnas
Be a lot, oh, a hundred percent. I mean, I'm pumping out what, 15, 20, sometimes 25 pieces of content every single day. I haven't taken a break. And as long as I remember, I mean, I guess the only break I took was Yom Kippur, but that wasn't even a break. So it's not like I had a day off. But I think that, like, for me, I've seen like, if I take even like six hours away and like, I don't post, when I start posting again, it takes a little bit to like, start picking up again. People are quick with their attention spans. They'll go and, like, find someone else very quickly. And so you always have to kind of keeping up with the algorithm, so to speak.
- [36:01]
David Pakman
I'm.
- [36:01]
Interviewer 2
I'm curious your thoughts on. We've got some critical elections this week. Yeah. And then really 2026 is going to get going. Do you think the dynamics we last time we talked about 28 to a degree is going to be like the creator presidential election? I think it's going to be unprecedented involvement from independent creators as a presidential 100%. But 26, I think especially with, you know, members of the creator cohorts going to house town halls and interviewing senators on site and all of these different things, I think 26 is going to be a preview of 28 in a sense with regard to the role that creators are going to play.
- [36:43]
Aaron Parnas
Yeah, without a doubt. I mean, I wouldn't be surprised if there is a creator led debate in 2028 especially. I'm really on both sides, honestly. I wouldn't be surprised if like the Daily Wire hosted it on the right and then like, I don't know, Midas Touch hosted on the left or something. Well, I don't know, we'll see. But I think that there will be creator led debates. I think that there will be a lot of folks, a lot of campaigns kind of reaching out to creators. I will say, at what point does the bubble burst, right? Because if everyone's like leaning into this space and doing more and more digital work, at some point it becomes kind of like TV or like, or mailers. Right. It just like you reach a point and then you can't really break through any further. So it'll come a time. If I had to guess, honestly, I actually think that it'll burst after 28. I think that'll be kind of like the time where there'll be something new and then people will figure out, okay, maybe we don't just need to focus on creators and digital. And I will say also I think a lot of campaigns are going to realize that their candidates are not necessarily digitally savvy and maybe shouldn't be focusing on creators. Not every candidate in my opinion needs to be focusing on creators or working with creators. The ones that do, they need to do it well. They don't just need to placate us, if that makes sense.
- [37:55]
Interviewer 2
I think that's super interesting because you know as well as I do that right now there's this huge spectrum of skill when it comes to skill and knowledge when it comes to elected officials and candidates at working with creators. There are those that are really good at getting us the sorts of updates that we can actually use, inviting people to events where we can actually do something of value rather than just try to mimic legacy and corporate media, but with fewer resources, which isn't so good. There's people that are really doing it well. On the other hand, I've had interactions with some offices, communications offices, where they kind of seem to want to use us almost like a PR tool.
- [38:35]
Aaron Parnas
Yes.
- [38:36]
Interviewer 2
And aren't really engaging in any way that is dynamic. They just want us to be like legacy media, but kind of at their beck and call.
- [38:44]
David Pakman
And I just don't. Maybe it's just not right for them.
- [38:46]
Interviewer 2
Maybe it's the wrong fit.
- [38:47]
Aaron Parnas
Oh, I agree. I mean, I've turned down multiple interviews where I kind of was talking to the member's office or even like a governor, and they were like, oh, we want to talk about X, Y, Z. And I'm like, okay, great. Like we could talk about that. But, like, I'm not sending you my questions in advance and I want to talk about ABC as well while we're at it. And they were like, no, we're not going to do that. And I was like, okay, well then, no, you're not coming on my show. Like, this is not a situation where you get to curate your appearance. You have to treat us like you would going on cnn, no doubt about it.
- [39:16]
Interviewer 2
And. And I think one of the things that sometimes is tough, I think some of the younger comms people get what we do, but some of the more traditional comms folks don't understand. How can we take that position? Isn't it obviously worth it for us to interview whoever it is? And I think that they don't understand. Understand our audiences, because my audience really isn't that interested in me talking to, you know, who. Not that seniority is.
- [39:46]
Aaron Parnas
Yeah.
- [39:46]
Interviewer 2
A member of Congress 397 in seniority about an obscure issue relevant only to the audiences. Just don't care either. It's not like we're giving up this incredibly valuable thing a hundred percent.
- [39:58]
Aaron Parnas
And that's why I was so upset to see the 60 Minutes interview last night. I thought that was just an example of like, where mainstream media is dying and where they're really failing. And the network that was once network of Cronkite. And to me it just. I mean, it's gone. And at the same time, what I am excited for when you talk about the elections tomorrow. And just generally I am excited for kind of this next generation coming up. I'm excited to see Abigail Svanberger and Mikey Sheryl on the Democratic side. These are like the next generation of Democrats In a way, they came up in 2018. They're newcomers, really, in the party. Same with mom Donnie in New York. He is presenting a new vision for the Democratic Party. Love him or hate him, he ran a campaign that a lot of people would be jealous of and should be jealous of. It was a great campaign. And so I think that you're really. The old guard's getting pushed out. And I'm excited to see that.
- [40:50]
Interviewer 2
Truly, one of the funny things I had Mamdani on today, as a number of creators did, I think in this kind of like, last push, and I've been honest with my audience, like, I'm not a socialist. He's a socialist. Cool. We have a significant difference of opinion when it comes to what the economic system should be.
- [41:08]
Aaron Parnas
Yeah.
- [41:09]
Interviewer 2
The globalized, the intifada stuff, it's just not for me. Like, it's just not my thing. But voters get to decide what they want. It's possible that there are Democrats that want that to be the vision. Maybe outside of New York, I don't know. Right.
- [41:26]
David Pakman
But it's going to be up for.
- [41:27]
Interviewer 2
Voters to decide that. And certainly I'm not the person. It's not. My views must be reflected in every single candidate everywhere. Maybe in Tennessee, Democrats look one way and in New York City, they look another way. But I think it's going to be very interesting to see whether any of these folks not only can win, it seems that he can win. It's tightened a little, but it seems likely that. That it's going to be fine for him. Can they get things done that they promised? And then how are voters going to evaluate the job that they do? And I respect the will of the voters to decide what it is they want to try.
- [42:00]
Aaron Parnas
I mean, listen, I think the Democratic Party needs to get back to its big tent mentality. And I. And I. It's unfortunate, honestly, to me, watching the way the kind of old guard of the party reacted to the Mamdani candidacy. In my opinion, I really think that the failure to coalesce around Mamdani earlier is emblematic of where the party is kind of failing. Because I think that you have a Democratic nominee. This is what voters. This is who voters supported. Whether or not you like him, that's your party's nominee. It's time to get on board. Or get. That's like for me, if you had Jack Cittarelli become the Republican nominee in New Jersey and Donald Trump and Republicans just saying, yeah, he's too moderate for me. We don't like him. He's not far right enough for me. They don't do that. They don't do that. And so, I mean, listen, I think at the end of the day, Democrats need to get back to this big tent mentality. You can be a Democrat in rural Wisconsin and you could be a Democrat in West Virginia and win, and you could be a Democrat in New York City and win, and it doesn't matter. You're a big Tet Party when it.
- [43:02]
Interviewer 2
Comes to what you see going forward as far as the intra. Let's call it the intra Republican situation, where, I mean, listen, I think for the most part, it's still deferential to Trump in most areas. But you're starting to see these little dots. You've got Marjorie Taylor Greene taking very public issue with some of the things that are going on. You had these 14 Republicans last week who signed on to the letter saying, hey, this approach, when it comes to farmers and ranchers, it's just not working. It's bad. Yeah, it's bad for the country. Do you think that this is a material change or that this is really just like exceptions to the rule and for the most part, this is a party that's still on board with Trump?
- [43:45]
Aaron Parnas
No, I think this is a material change. I think that the Republican Party is really having kind of crisis of thought right now, and I don't know where they're going to end up because it's. It's happening in kind of these, like, micro bursts like you were talking about. Marjorie Taylor Greene, the 14 Republicans, senators voting down tariffs. Okay, fine. But then you have some, like, kind of deeper divides. The Heritage foundation fighting over Tucker Carlson, and whether or not supporting Tucker Carlson is the vision of the party or whether or not a more moderate version of the party is where the party's gonna go forward. And I think that's a bigger conversation. And then heading into 2028, if you asked me today, is Vance the nominee, I would say no. I don't know where the Republican Party is going to. And that I think they're having a bit of an issue right now. I don't know. I think that the cracks we're seeing today are gonna become fissures over the next several years. And especially if Republicans lose in the midterms, those fissures are gonna be wide open. Wide open. And I think it'll effectively cut Donald Trump's presidency in half.
- [44:48]
Interviewer 2
I saw. I wanna get to Nick Fuentes, by the way, which some people in the chat are talking about. I saw this. These rumors about J.D. vance and Erica Kirk, and it's all very tabloid and gossipy to me. But the thing I do find interesting, and I did a segment about this today, is I don't know if you saw this video a few weeks ago where some Turning Point kid confronted Vivek Ramaswamy and they were like, we need Christians here. Like, you're Hindu. You know the video I'm talking about.
- [45:18]
Aaron Parnas
I, I think I'm familiar with it. I probably saw parts of it, if I had to guess.
- [45:22]
Interviewer 2
So the gist of it is they were like, hold on a second. This is a Christian country. The whole Turning Point MAGA thing is Christianity. Cool. I do think there is something interesting if J.D. vance is going to be the heir apparent to Maga ism or Trumpism, that his wife, who is American, but she has brown skin and she's Hindu. I don't know that the Turning Point MAGA crowd that is sort of up and coming in voting age, I don't.
- [45:47]
David Pakman
Know that they're going to allow that.
- [45:49]
Interviewer 2
And by allow, I mean I don't know that it's going to be like with Melania. You know, Melania's nominal Christian, she's foreign, but she's nominally Christian and she's white and whatever. I don't know that the MAGA people are going to go for Usha Vance.
- [46:01]
Aaron Parnas
Well, I mean, Vance did say that Ushta, he asked Usha to convert. I will say this, a lot of people don't know Usha Vance. And I think that if I were running the Trump administration, I would give her a more prominent role. She is a very impressive person, truthfully. I mean, she clerked on the Supreme Court, one of the top litigators in America, for her time. I mean, she's, she has, she's very impressive. And politics aside. And so I think it's been a failure of the administration not to have her front and center. And I think that I do agree with you that I think that there are parts in the Turning Point world that won't accept her. But that's just sad. Like we shouldn't be talking about people's race and whether that matters electorally or their religion. And whether that matters electorally, it shouldn't matter who she preaches or what she looks like. And that is a problem.
- [46:50]
Interviewer 2
Do you think that there is any other natural person? Like, I know that it's so early and things happen, but J.D. vance seems like it would be the natural direction that Trump would try to push the party.
- [47:03]
David Pakman
Is there anyone else?
- [47:04]
Interviewer 2
Like, to me, it seems like DeSantis has sort of burned his public standing with Republicans. I don't know.
- [47:10]
Aaron Parnas
I think Marco Rubio is going to be the nominee. I'll predict it now. I actually think Marco Rubio will be the nominee. And I think Vance. Here's the thing with the VP. VPs flame out a lot. Being a vice president is not easy because you don't have your, you can't actually put forth your policy positions, and oftentimes everything that goes wrong in the administration is blamed on you. Biden didn't run right after. It took him a little while before he came in and ran. Vice President Harris didn't win, partly because she was attached at the hit to the Biden administration. And historically, VPs don't always perform that well. I think Rubio will run away with it. I really do.
- [47:48]
Interviewer 2
Do you think that in order for Rubio to win the nomination, it, it has to, or let me put it a different way, if Rubio is going to ultimately come out on top, does he need to be the only Trump administration alum in the running, or do you think that he could actually beat out Vance?
- [48:08]
Aaron Parnas
I think he can beat out Vance if, I mean, Vance is more focused on podcasting than anything else right now. I, I, unless things change. To me, I think Rubio can beat out Vance because I think Rubio actually has a big boy job. Right? Like, he's traveling the world, he's doing work. I don't know really what JD Mans is doing. I would be curious to see. The one wild card in all of this is Tucker. If Tucker Carlson were to run for the Republican nomination, then I think this upends everything. That's the one that I'm kind of. We'll see what happens.
- [48:38]
Interviewer 2
What do you make of what Tucker's been up to? Because he's been doing this stuff where he, I mean, he had Nick Fuentes on. And this maybe will serve as a, as an entryway into what the role of Fuentes may be in a future Republican movement, I guess, although maybe not party. Tucker's kind of been doing some interesting and strange things to a degree. He, I don't know if you saw, I'm using the term that Dinesh d' Souza used. He interviewed a nun with a mustache that d' Souza says was politically useful to him, but it was sort of like an unusual thing for him to do. Like, what do you make of what he's up to?
- [49:15]
Aaron Parnas
I'd like to know who's funding him. That's what I want to know. Because the shift that Tucker Carlson has made over the. I mean, he's always been radically to the right, but like, recently going to Moscow and saying that Moscow grocery stores are so much better than American grocery stores. Like, come on. Like, you don't. That. That. That complete flip. I mean, you would think that, like. I mean, I thought Tucker, for all of his faults, was generally a smart guy. Like, he knew what he was. Like, he knew the vision he was espousing. But lately, I don't know. I don't know. I want to follow the money.
- [49:47]
Interviewer 2
The grocery store thing is so interesting to me because it's a trope of friendly media people to authoritarians. And, like, I'll give a couple of examples. We've seen it, although they aren't many in number. We've seen it with the defenders of North Korea, who love to go to North Korea, and they go to the grocery store. It's basically a movie set. Like, it's not really a grocery store, it's a movie set. Nobody can really afford to shop at these places. You know, olive oil is the average monthly salary, and that's like a sort of set that we've seen used. I've seen it in Venezuela where there will be people who go to Venezuela, defenders of that regime, and they go.
- [50:26]
David Pakman
Look, we have everything.
- [50:27]
Interviewer 2
We've got 10 types of olive oil. The grocery store is empty because nobody who works a Venezuelan job can actually afford to shop in that grocery store. And he did that trope. It was very unusual to see. You think that it's just money that explains it?
- [50:42]
Aaron Parnas
I think money explains it. I also. I mean, and I'm not saying if. Tucker, if you're watching, I'm not saying you're funded by Russia. That's not what I'm saying. I'm just saying that there is enough money out there that I think money does a lot to a person. But I also think that, like, Tucker, what he's trying to do is he's trying to change the minds of Americans to kind of back away from this old, like, America hegemony. And it's a very dangerous mentality. I think he's a rogue actor in a lot of ways. And I think that he's trying to kind of corrupt the minds, especially young people in America. So maybe that's also part of it. I. I don't know. I don't know.
- [51:22]
Interviewer 2
So then that gets to the Fuentes thing. You know, over the last month, Nick Fuentes has sort of been welcomed. I don't know that I would say with open arms, but certainly with. I don't know what to call it. He's been, he's been welcomed to a degree, yes, by figures that might be more associated with the left or the right of the political spectrum, at least historically. And I don't know if all of those figures necessarily know what they're doing.
- [51:52]
David Pakman
And why they're doing it, or if.
- [51:54]
Interviewer 2
There is some kind of concerted effort to start kind of whitewashing his political views so that maybe they can play a larger role in what, right wing politics. What do you, what do you make of it?
- [52:04]
Aaron Parnas
Um, I, I honestly think that Fuentes has a platform again, because, I mean, it's all, truthfully, it all goes back to Elon Musk and Twitter. I mean, that, that's really where it all goes to. Because I think once you give Nick Fuentes back his Twitter account, once you gave Laura Loomer back her Twitter account, these people with large followings became normalized again. Right. And so without their Twitter accounts, they really did not have that much of a voice. And therefore people like Trump didn't need them. But now they have that voice, they have that platform, and Republicans are using them for their advantage. And Fuentes is building up his platform right now. I think there is a void post the murder of Kirk of who is going to take that kind of mantle, that debater bro on the right. Whether it's Nick Fuentes, whether it's, I don't know, Ben Shapiro, who knows Megyn Kelly, I don't know. So they're trying to figure that out. But I think it all ha. It all stems back to them being re platformed. Truly.
- [53:01]
Interviewer 2
I want to talk a little bit about this kind of debate bro culture. I just want to mention for everybody who's watching, I'm talking to Aaron Parnas. If you're one of my substack followers, make sure you're following him. If you're following Aaron, would love for you to follow my substack as well. I'm curious whether you have some broader opinion about the rage bait type debate bro culture that has, that has built as a little bullet point. I decided after the murder of Kirk not to go forward with a Jubilee surrounded thing that I had been talking about. And just so my audience knows, I never signed anything. Some people were like, David, you bailed on a contract. I didn't have any contract signed. We were having a conversation. I decided I don't think the short term publicity gain is worth it for me to participate in something that I actually don't really think furthers the movement or my ability to deeply discuss ideas. I don't think people are bad for doing it. A lot of my friends have done it. Cool. But then there's the whole broader culture. You know, these panel shows with seven people screaming at each other or whatever. What do you think about that movement, that part of the, of the political area that we exist in. What are your thoughts?
- [54:08]
Aaron Parnas
You're going to get me in trouble because I'm friends with some of the ones on the left. No, I mean, truthfully, I think that the debate broke culture is a cancer in our political system. I really do think it is. I don't think, unfortunately, many debate bros on both sides, they've never knocked the door on their life. They've never actually done something to help further a cause on the ground. And I'm not, I mean, there are some who have. Right. But I'm saying this as a more kind of generalization and I think that when you use your platform to bait others into political argument, you're dividing the country more than you're uniting them. And I really think that right now the American people really deserve kind of to be united. The American people deserve people who will unite them. And that whole culture does the complete opposite. So I, and yeah, I mean, like someone says, have they had a real job? I don't know that they've had a real job in their life. Some of them probably haven't. And that is also a problem. Like, I think that when we have big platforms, it's up to all of us to use them responsibly and rage baiting, using AI, spreading misinformation, using clickbait headlines, which sometimes you have to do. I think it's all kind of part of the same problem of like you're just doing a disservice to the country as a whole.
- [55:33]
Interviewer 2
For people who are familiar with Aaron, you may know he's a former Republican. And you, you also may remember that I interviewed Aaron's dad, Lev Parnas, who played a major role in the entire Trump Biden, Ukraine situation. I'm curious, Aaron, the Republican Party you left, does what's going on today with MAGA even remotely resemble that? Was it already starting to become MAGA ized or do you not even recognize your old party?
- [56:01]
Aaron Parnas
Oh Lord, I was a Republican when I was like 16 years old. So that, I mean, that was 10 years ago now, almost more than 10 years ago. It's been a long time. I think for me, the party of then and the party of now I mean, everything you're hearing publicly now, they were saying privately then, I think that's the only difference. Right. I don't think things have changed radically. But I will say, like, everything you hear publicly from people like Stephen Miller, they were saying things like that behind the scenes. The racism, the homophobia, the anti immigrant bias, I mean, all of that existed back then. And I was a Republican, not because I believed in it, but because I grew up in a Republican household. That's primarily the only reason why. And so when I had my political awakening and kind of changed parties and stuff, I really realized that the party that I was once a part of, in name only, I guess I was a rhino, as you can say, wasn't necessarily. I mean, it wasn't what I, what I supported. But yeah, I will say, I think everything you hear now is, I mean, it's the same party. It's just they're more open and willing to talk about it.
- [57:06]
David Pakman
Yeah, that kind of.
- [57:06]
Interviewer 2
To kind of circle back on the effect of Trumpism, I've thought, and I think I still believe this, although maybe the last few months have changed my view on this a little bit. I've thought since Trump came onto the political scene, he didn't really create racists and xenophobes and the entire thing. I think that he disinhibited them by creating an environment where the stakes or the risk of publicly saying some of this stuff was diminished. And to a degree, on platforms like Twitter, it's actually welcomed. And so I've thought that, that. I think that's a version of what you're saying, which is that the effect of Trump was not necessarily changing some of these views, but allowing these people to coalesce and to realize, hey, we're.
- [57:48]
Aaron Parnas
Going to start saying some other stuff 100%. I mean, that's what it was. They like, he normalized this. There's a reason why hate crimes shot up after Trump was elected because he. That ideology was always around. People were always racist. Right. Racism was there. They just weren't. They didn't feel comfortable acting on it until he was elected. That's the difference.
- [58:09]
Interviewer 2
All right, we've been speaking with Aaron Parnas. Follow him on any platform. He is on any and all platforms.
- [58:15]
Aaron Parnas
Subscribe to David Subsack as well, and go check out David's YouTube because I'm a big fan.
- [58:21]
Interviewer 2
Aaron, always good to see you. Keep it up and we'll see you soon.
- [58:25]
Aaron Parnas
All right, take care. I'll see you later this week.
- [58:27]
Interviewer 2
Okay, see you. Take care.
- [58:30]
David Pakman
A pending Supreme Court case could strip our Fourth Amendment rights and allow immigration agents to come into our homes for any reason. No probable cause needed. All while Republicans try to twist things so that you think this is all great for America. This should be the biggest story in the US Right now. But it's almost impossible to keep up with the millions of moves that Trump is making every single day. That's why Ground News exists. Ground News is an app and website that exposes the blind spots and spin before it takes control of our opinions. Ground News is the smarter, more reliable way to stay informed when MAGA is banking on us getting distracted. I'm partnering up with Ground News to give you 40% off the same vantage plan that I use, so you'll pay only five bucks a month for all of their premium features. Just go to Ground Dot News, slash Pacman or use the code Pacman in the app. When you sign up, the link is in the description or scan the QR code. MAGA and Donald Trump just got brutal news. It's not from Democrats, it's not from the deep state. It's not from some shadowy group plotting against Trump. The bad news that Trump and MAGA just got is from voters. This is regular People polling reveals 61% of voters believe that Trump has made the economy worse. We are seeing it broken down based on education, based on race, based on income. The numbers are terrible. Here is a little report from CNN based on this new data.
- [60:11]
Interviewer
This is broken down by key demographics. Independents 60 so 2/3 of independents think that Trump has made the economy worse. Those younger voters that David Talked about, almost 2/3 as well, people of color, almost 3/4, non college voters, which is, you know, a key part of his, of his coalition. Very high also. And same with when it looks, when you look at people making less than $50,000 a year, look, it seems we've.
- [60:42]
I
Finally come upon something that most Americans agree upon and that is a central theme of Trump's winning message a year ago. I will bring costs down. Just simply has not happened. And when you add to the rest of just the chaotic year, voters do not see the President's policies and actions, although there are many of them affecting their lives in a positive way. As I've been talking to voters in New Jersey and Virginia over the past few weeks, I mean, it's the independent voters who really come alive here. And it's not that hard to find voters who voted for the President. They really wanted to see some change and now they are not pleased with this. Now look, we have to put a million caveats here, because a lot will happen between now and next year. But I am told by a White House official, officials, that the President is obsessed with the midterms. You can just hear him talking about it already. He talks about it so often. So Virginia and New Jersey tomorrow are going to offer a window into what the country's thinking, as our poll did, of course.
- [61:44]
David Pakman
But so listen, the heart of Trump's comeback pitch was we're going to get the economy fixed finally, after Biden destroyed it. I'm going to bring costs down. It's a. He repeated it like it was the cure for everything from inflation to, you know, male pattern baldness. And notably, Donald Trump has lost 15 points among independents. Back in February, 43% of independents approved of Trump's job performance, and now only 28% do. That is a stunning collapse with independents. And this is not because independents suddenly said, we love Democrats. Independents looked at Trump's first few months. They saw the chaos. They saw the tariffs, the economic effect, the markets panicking, the job losses, the crackdowns, all of that uncertainty. And they said, this doesn't seem like it's really making any sense. And I don't, you know, I always try to be careful when we look at the data from independents. I don't want to make independents out to be enlightened centrists who are above the partizan fray. And in fact, most independents vote one way or the other. Like, I'm an independent, I've never been a Democrat. I mostly vote for Democrats. I evaluate each race, and in just about every race, I determined that a Democrat is the person most closely aligned with me. But there is a degree to which independents, especially in polling, are believed to be a little less ideologically beholden to the party they're a member of, because they're not member of, not members of a party. So a 15 point wipeout with independents is massive. And then if you zoom out and you say, okay, his big thing was the economy, you go back to 2015, he was the guy who understood trade and was the only one who could fix it. He'll run the country like a business, even though he bankrupted many businesses. When your main area of expertise, the economy, now sees 61% believing the economy is worse today than when you took office because of the things you did. Everything that could go wrong is going wrong. When those are the numbers, it's happening very quickly. And then we get to what could save him over the next six months. Is there anything there is this kind of reality that presidential approval ratings rarely go up. Why? When a president comes into power, they have some approval rating which usually includes everybody who voted for him and some portion of the people that didn't vote for him but want him to do well. As the president does things people don't like, they switch from approved to disapprove. So you've got the totality of, of the country he does blanket tariffs. A lot of people don't like that. They go from I used to approve, now I don't. He bombs Iran. Some people go from I used to approve, but now I don't. And what doesn't seem to happen is that when you stop approving of the job a president is doing, overall, if they go and do one thing that you like, rarely do you go, now I approve again. Usually approval ratings just go down over time. What's the exception? The exception are events like 9 11. George W. Bush's approval was collapsing in 2001. And at the end of 2001, close to the end in September of 2020, 2001, we had the 911 attacks. George W. Bush's approval rating shot up, I believe, to in the 80s, upper 80s if I recall correctly, although I'm going from memory and it was a little while ago, that is not the sort of event that you consider that you can cause or create, although there are conspiracy theorists who say it was created. But that is not, that is not my belief at this time. So might Trump try to create a crisis to boost his approval rating? I wouldn't put it past him. I don't think he has any moral qualms with doing, with doing that. But these numbers, especially among independents, look like the they're going to be a disaster for Trump next November. Finally, finally, finally, corporate and legacy media is starting to talk about Donald Trump's right eye. I have spent years pointing out in passing, sometimes it's a rally clip, sometimes it's whenever that Donald Trump's right eye is often almost completely swollen shut. What is happening on the right side of his face? Is it the cheek that's closing the eye? His face is sometimes droopy. It's like, did he walk into a closet door at Mar A Lago? What did he do? And for the longest time, nobody was touching this. Mainstream and legacy outlets pretended not to see it. They analyzed everything he said, but they didn't comment on the fact that this guy's right eye is almost completely swollen shut. Until now. Drudge Report has posted and they linked to an example from the 60 Minutes interview. Quite frankly, Trump's swollen eye has been much worse before. But Drudge Report linked to this moment in Trump's 60 Minutes interview as it is an example of Trump's right eye almost completely swollen shot. But it's not the worst example out.
- [66:54]
Interviewer
There that publicly, to the rest of us, what does he want to give away?
- [66:57]
Donald Trump
I can't give away my secrets. I don't want to be one.
- [67:00]
David Pakman
And indeed, Trump's right eye is barely open.
- [67:04]
Donald Trump
These guys, it tells you exactly what's going to happen if something the other side knows.
- [67:08]
David Pakman
But, so listen, I don't have any new information for you about, like, what is going on with Trump's face. This isn't like everybody has a rough day. This is a recurring visible asymmetrical swelling. It keeps showing up usually, you know, in scenarios that don't have any rhyme or reason. It's not, oh, it's always when he gets off the plane, or it's not always when he's doing interviews. It's all over the place. And now that it has finally crossed over into the pseudo mainstream, Drudge Report is like, I mean, it's not cnn, but it's the pseudo mainstream. More people are starting to ask, what the hell is going on here? Is this some kind of sinus issue? Is it a neurological problem? Is it a medication? Is it what? What is it? And why does it keep happening? And why has no one ever asked a question about it other than people on independent shows like ours? This is the guy who demanded cognitive tests for other presidents and regularly brags about passing a dementia screening test. And now, finally, there are some in the legacy and corporate media who are catching up. Now, I have to tell you, when I asked Jake Tapper and more recently, Jonathan Karl, why isn't more being said about what's going on with Trump? His face, his legs, his bruises, they were not exactly profiles and courage in their answers. And I think they're being careful to a degree because of who they work for. But, you know, Jake Tapper just kind of said like, well, what? What is it that we would be covering? And I gave him the list. And then Jonathan Karl said, well, you know, there have been questions about Trump's health for a long time. Almost like that means it's not news. I don't know. I wasn't super impressed with either of the answers. But slowly but surely, there is this clawing that is happening and we are seeing more and more examples of this. And finally, the swollen eye make it into something approximating legacy corporate or establishment media, which at this point Drudge Report certainly is. What will it take to really mainstream the story? I don't know. Former Vice President Dick Cheney has died at age 84. We will discuss it today on the bonus show along with this incredible story where a guy who flipped out on me and blocked me eight years ago, Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, he has gotten a special recently approved prostate cancer medication thanks to getting Trump involved by tweeting about it. Really a reminder of the two tiered systems that we have in this country. And finally, Nancy Pelosi. Rumors are swirling that she will be quitting politics. She says she's going to wait until she sees the results of California's Prop 50 before making a final decision. But the rumors are swirling that Pelosi is getting ready to hang it up. All of those stories and more on today's bonus show. Get instant access to the bonus show by signing up@join pacman.com your first payment, whether it is monthly or yearly, will be donated to saving America. This month we are doing what we can to counteract the SNAP benefit cuts. I will see you on the bonus show. I'll be back tomorrow. And I will be live tonight at 8pm Eastern with election results.