Pablo Torre Finds Out - We Fact-Checked Stephen A.'s LeBron and Kobe Story — and Polled 1,000+ Voters on His Presidential Campaign

Episode Date: April 4, 2025

Did LeBron attend Kobe's memorial in 2020? Pablo reports on claims renewed by Stephen A. Smith. And should Stephen A. actually run in 2028? We commissioned Rasmussen Reports to conduct a legitimate political survey, then presented the results to Wyatt Cenac and Tim Miller.• See the full results of the exclusive PTFO/Rasmussen poll https://www.rasmussenreports.com/• Subscribe to Wyatt Cenac's newsletterhttps://wyattcenac.substack.com/• Subscribe to The Bulwark Podcast with Tim Millerhttps://www.thebulwark.com/s/bulwarkpodcast Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

I'm Pablo Torre, and this episode of Pablo Torre finds out is brought to you by Remy Martin 1738, Accord Royale. Exceptionally smooth cognac for all your game day festivities. Please drink responsibly. Because today, we're going to find out what this sound is. If that name had been Pikachu, do you think it would have also gotten 2%? Right after this ad. You're listening to Giraff Kings Network. We have paperwork in front of us. Tim Miller, Widesenack, reuniting. Not an expert panel, but almost like an exploratory committee.

Yeah, an exploratory committee. That's a term of art in politics, isn't it, Tim? Yeah, oh, yeah, I've been on a couple of those. You have? For Jeb and John Huntsman, more often than not, it's a candidate that it's like, I want to see if the water's warm for me. And Wyatt, I do want to just establish the following question. Have you been following this feud between Stephen A. Smith and LeBron James? A little bit.

I have a Twitter level of knowledge about this. I have a mastodon level knowledge. Is that more or less? Okay. Well, we can just watch this. I am pleading with LeBron James as a father. Stop this. Stop this.

We all know that Brony James is in the NBA because of his dad. And I turn around and he's right here in my face. he said, yo, you got to stop talking shit about my son. You got to stop fucking with my son. That's my son. That's my son. And I was like, what? I thought it was weak.

I thought it was some bullshit. He's like on a Taylor Swift tour run right now. Oh, yeah. Yeah, we're watching it. Yeah, we're awesome. He's going to be smiling from ear to ear when he hears me talking about him again. Oh, my God.

He's going to get home and grab some ice cream out of the fucking freezer and sit in his house. chair and his tiny whiteies on the couch. Which led to Stephen A. Smith going on first take and escalating all of this by saying this. I suggest that he'd be happy with the things that I haven't brought up. I never brought up really and never really discussed why you were not at Kobe Bryant's memorial service.

I never really brought up. And so this is where I need to start today before we get into our packet of research because the question that is embedded in what Stephen A's take was there was obviously. explosive. It got aggregated. There's a community note over on X, and the community note said this. Quote, this is incorrect. LeBron was in attendance, according to the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and Entertainment Tonight. They all list James as among the attendees at the memorial. LeBron James requested to not be filmed at the memorial. And Stephen A. Smith, during the show, apologized on air and also on Twitter, saying that he misspoke. Can I just ask, what is even the

theory like what why would this be a slight like what are people upset about i got i don't know yeah i guess that's the part i don't get that part why is this a thing that merits a cover up what would be the failure of lebron here that people would be upset about and also if he didn't go to this funeral what's the big deal right like he's like yeah why like why like why does he have to attend every basketball funeral this was kind of a state funeral in the world of politics. Have you ever been to a state funeral of any kind? No.

I've been to, I guess, the viewing in the rotunda, but I've never got to, like, go to the A-list funeral, you know? Maybe one of these days. But that is a big deal. Mark Leibovitz's book starts at the McCain funeral. And it's like all the who's sitting next to who. So there is a lot of, you know, political drama around these sorts of events. Yeah.

Have you ever been to an A-List? funeral, Wyatt? No, I just go to the after parties. Mm, yeah. This A-list service, to be very clear, LeBron's attendance at the memorial service, trying to be a subject, according to a high-level source that is close to the Lakers. Quote, a topic that people throughout the Lakers organization

top to bottom have been grousing about for years. LeBron James, to put us back in January of 2020, right? So the tragedy happens. And LeBron James in public, he really did take the lead on being a spokesperson. He spoke up in a team meeting reportedly saying, quote, God gave me wide shoulders for a reason. He got a tattoo of Kobe Bryant, the Mamba, posted on Instagram. And then before the Lakers' first home game after the crash,

he tossed his notes aside and gave a speech at center court. Now, I got something written down. You know, they asked me to kind of stay on course or whatever the case may be, but Lager Nation, man, I would be selling y'all short if I read off this shit, so I'm going straight from the heart. And then he even dunked like Kobe Bryant, and he equated the dunk to the Marlon Wayne's classic, the sixth man, by saying, quote, Kobe came down, put himself in my body,

and gave me that dunk on that break. And he even referenced the upcoming memorial himself. And so what I wanted to do was just take a fact, based approach to this question, Tim and Wyatt. And so what we did here, at Pablo Torre finds out, was talk to eight sources who are directly familiar with this situation to get to the bottom of a mystery that has been hiding, allegedly, in plain sight. I'm fascinated.

I'm waiting with bated breath to. Yeah, that was the result. I just want to know why Byron Scott told you all this. Or Nick Van Axel. So, this memorial service, it was Lakers executives, the producers of the Grammy Awards. It was Vanessa Bryant, Kobe's widow, Gigi's mother, all of these people in this planning group, creating a live, calivized memorial at Staples Center in the arena itself. That was intended, again, to be both very personal, but also incomparable in how A-list

and exclusive and produced the whole spectacle was going to be. It was February 24, 2020, which happens to have been the day my daughter was born. So Violet came into the world. I missed all of this. And so my, you didn't have the memorial on in the hospital. Second screen. Yeah, it was the view of my wife's birth canal and then Michael Jordan crying. Yeah, that would have been good Instagram content.

And I'm just investigating these claims to be very, very clear on a purely factual basis. Like, I'm not here to talk about motives. But claim number one, there's a video of Diana Tarasi who spoke at the memorial, Yukon basketball star, one of the great women's basketball players ever. And she told a joke while complimenting 11-year-old. G. Bryant and her level of skill, and it sounded like this. I mean, who has a Turner Rae fadeaway jumper at 11? LeBron barely got it today.

It's a roast. Which is a pretty good joke, a pretty bold joke from Tarrasie, from the goat. And she does, by the way, gesture off-screen left. But what we did, of course, was look at multiple angles of the broadcast of that very direction at various points in the broadcast. And no LeBron James. You see, Powell Gasol. James Worthy? James Worthy, that's right. James Worthy, your source. Cooze.

That is not what I'd say. Cooze's outfit. Cous is wearing the big glasses, the big sunglasses. Oh, wow. Yeah. Is he also wearing those super long sleeves? I like to think that his black tie was super long sleeves as well. Like this is a common tactic. You know, a rhetorical tactic. You're gesturing at somebody. I don't, I don't think there's anything to go with there. No visible LeBron at all in the photography. And then what I did, was confirmed with multiple sources that Diana Tarasi

never saw LeBron James at the memorial that day. So she, this person held up as the proof, did not see LeBron that day. So, claim number two. That LeBron James was there, but he chose to be left off camera. And what we did was we talked to a lead producer on the memorial,

a longtime award show producer named Ron Bacill. Ron Bacill helped coordinate everything from Beyonce's 640 AM sound check to Michael Jordan's eulogy. And the producer told us when we asked him about any directive from LeBron James about having him on camera, quote, the off-camera thing is bullshit. End quote. And so I want to be careful here, but he wasn't stage left. He wasn't off-camera.

And we can further tell you that, according to two additional independent, high-level sources involved in the planning of this whole event who were in attendance, what they tell us. is here at Pablo Torre finds out is that they did not see LeBron in the building. They don't know of a single person who did see him in the building. And one of the people who did not see LeBron at all that day was, in fact, Lakers owner Jeannie Bus. So as one of the sources who spent that morning in the event's VIP areas, says of LeBron, quote, there's no fucking way he was there. If he was there, he was Casper the Ghost. End quote. My personal. belief, by the way, is that I don't care how anyone chooses to grieve at all.

Yeah. But LeBron James, the face of the Lakers, who got the tattoo, gave the speech at center court, threw away his notes, was the face of mourning for this person. What LeBron did not do was what LeBron himself had chosen to do in the weeks before. LeBron did not take center stage at all. And multiple high-level sources told us that LeBron was not invited to speak at Kobe's Memorial. We had a third source involved in the planning of this. Go back to an early wish list of speakers and performers. This was shared between the Lakers, Vanessa Bryant, event producers.

And as this third source puts it, quote, he's not on the list. Vanessa's on all these emails. It wasn't just the Lakers. It was a family thing. There was a lot of emotion. The word LeBron isn't even in here. We did reach out to LeBron's camp, and they did not comment, which is totally fair. They also wanted to make clear that they're not talking about anything that has to do with Stephen A. Smith.

But LeBron's agent, Rich Paul, told Stephen A. Smith himself at the time that LeBron was, quote, in his own space. A very carefully worded answer for was LeBron at the memorial service. And LeBron was asked for comment at Lakers practice by ESPN's Dave McMedaman, the day after the memorial. And LeBron's answer is conveniently on tape. Did you attend the tournament? Like I said, man, it was just, I respect your question, for sure. Very emotional, very emotional day, very tough day for myself and my family, for everyone involved. One thing I can come out of saying how strong and how bold and how powerful and that's it is.

To stand up there the way she did, to give the speech the way she gave that speech. I commend her. My heart is with their family still, with his three daughters that's still here. His wife, with his mom and dad, his sister. It was just a very difficult day, obviously, a celebration, but it's a difficult day for all of them. I appreciate it. So in that answer, you heard what?

That he wasn't there, the guy, the white guy in the corner with the cell phone. It was taping it. His face kind of reflected everything, which was kind of like, I don't think you're actually answering me. Like, why are you talking about this? Like, what is your non-answer? So, I don't know. But it seems like it would be a no to me.

Yeah, that didn't. Was there not a follow-up question? That's where it was left for roughly five years, until I realized that this would be a thing that no one had actually followed up on satisfactorily. And by the way, what I want to make very clear is that I don't think that LeBron was obligated. to do anything. There is stuff under the surface here that I can't fully definitively say. It feels like Vanessa Bryant is the key source here, so I don't know who your sources are,

but it is notable that in his answer, he goes rightly into a very lavish compliment of her. It was like a person and her speed. It was a great celebration. It feels like that would be the point person to untangle this. You know, I don't know if you know this. When Trump won the first time and I went to a, place of dark depression when I was like I should quit politics. Through a friend, I interviewed with the Lakers to be their flack.

Is that right? And yeah, and I had an interview with them and with Jeannie and them. It was very pleasant. It just wasn't really a fit for a variety of reasons. But like I'm hearing this whole story and like imagining that alternate life for me. I'm like trying to spin this on. I'm like, who am I spinning for right now? Jeannie or LeBron or Kobe's legacy and Pablo's calling me?

And I was like, you know, I'm happy to be on this side of the moment. Mike, I guess, and to not be a Lakers flack trying to navigate the Kremlinology of the Kobe funeral. It is. It's genuine. It is Kremlinology. It is. What are people not saying but clearly feeling?

What are the power dynamics and incentives at play? And why won't Tim Miller fucking return my calls? Why don't you just answer this? Was he there? All of which is to say that when I'm trying to get the answer to that question, we were also conducting a legitimate political poll about whether one of the people in involved in this would be a legitimate candidate for president of the United States. Hey, I mean, I'm not looking forward to where this is going.

These packets in front of us are the results of a truly exhaustive attempt relative to the just pure speculation that is surrounded whether Stephen A. Smith is actually going to do the thing that he's been talking about for months now and actually run for president. No. And, you know, I'm half joking, but I kind of mean it. I mean, I have no desire to be a congressional figure or a senator. But if you came to me and you told me I had a legitimate shot to win the presidency of the United States of America, I would definitely consider it. But I, here's the problem. So you want to break through the line?

Oh, yeah, that's right. I'm a moderate. I'm a centrist. And I'm the kind of person that do I believe that if I committed myself to knowing politics the way you and others know it? do I believe I could win a Democratic nomination? Hell yes. Particularly the state of affairs that exists, I think it would be a cakewalk.

I think I'd take them all out. I really, really believe that. I really think I could take them. Welcome to the exploratory committee, Wyatt Zanak. He didn't know you were joining it, but you are absolutely-hearted. Everything he's saying is bullshit. There's just like, like, he's like,

oh, if I put the time in, I could totally run for president. He might as well say, like, if I put six months in, I could totally fight Mike Tyson. Like there's like, all he's doing is just talking. There's nothing serious. He is the most unsurious human being who just likes the attention. And that is what you are giving him with this.

Congratulations, Pablo. You just fell into the trap. The eagomaniac wants people to talk about him. And you just did it. And you tricked me and Tim into, taken part of this and I want no part of it Pablo I don't want it because he doesn't want this he just wants attention I'm kind of intrigued on the other hand damn damn it I thought you were with me I'm spiritually with you but I don't know my shadow self is as tingling don't let the

shadow emerge my shadow self is tingling I find it hard to disagree with why it's fundamental point, but I also deeply value him as an important part of the exploratory committee. Yeah, same. Which is like the guy who's going to actually... The hostage in the exploratory committee? The hostage slash opposition opinionist who's going to establish that the research that we are presenting should be viewed with a healthy dose of what wide, I believe, expressed as bullshit. Is there any way that...

It's going to run in the red team. We have a red team project. You pretend like you're on the other side. And so we'll have you on the Exploratory Committee pretending like you're hostile, but really you're just kind of testing out the ways for Stephen A to defeat his haters. Sure. To help me do this,

is there any way we could get like some rope to tie me to this chair so that to anyone watching on YouTube, they can see, I wanted no part of this. I'm clearly a hostage in this conversation. All we have are two bottles of Remy Martin and a hat. Yeah, I'll take some boost. We might need to, you might need to.

dip into the reserves early. But the thing that kick started this whole enterprise truly is that there was this single throwaway question in a McLaughlin poll in January that went viral immediately because it gave Stephen A. Smith, why it's an ex-favorian person,

a 2% chance as a wild card against the field of 15 other potential candidates for the 28 Democratic primary. And Stephen A goes on Hannity and he says he had no business being on that list. He did not. And so we wanted to actually fact-check this. Okay, that's one throwaway line in a poll.

What have we committed actual time to try and do an exclusive Pablo Torre finds out first of its kind political poll? Before you go into this, though, can I just ask a question? Yes. So there was a poll where they had 15 names, or was it 16? 15 other potential candidates. So they had all of these names and Stephen A. Smith's name is on there. Yeah. And he gets 2%.

if that name had been Pikachu, do you think it would have also gotten 2%? Like, it wasn't, like, I don't, I just feel like the fact that you're putting the name on the list legitimizes the name in a way that at least a few people will be like, well, I'll check that box, sure. To Wyatt's point, polling as an instrument, flawed, limited, right? There's an epistemological question of, like, chicken or egg, is this, real because you asked about it, or is this real because someone felt away about it when you asked them about it? So all of that is a very useful, both qualitative and quantitative context.

For the fact that we commissioned a legitimate survey with Rasmussen of 1,021 likely American voters with dozens of questions conducted over two days, online and by phone, basic demographics of the survey, 52% women, 33% Democratic, 35% Republican. 32% unaffiliated. And Rasmussen, Tim, you know, again, it's a public opinion firm that is a thing. It's a real thing. Rasmussen is a legitimate polling operation.

Can we dive into these cross-taps? What's doing? Chart number one. We asked a survey of 1,021, likely American voters. Who would you consider a stronger Democratic candidate for president? Hillary Clinton in 2016, got 36%. Stephen A. Smith in 2028 got 34%.

Not sure. Coming in strong with 30%. I would assume that most of the people that took the poll were familiar with the fact that Hillary Clinton lost in 2016. So they have that kind of base bias here when they're trying to answer this question. Well, you know, so even if Stephen A. Smith had a 2% chance of winning, you would think, well, that would be better than the 0% chance that Hillary ended up with. So I'm not fully, my brain isn't fully blown by this quite yet. Yeah, who would you consider the stronger candidate? The person who you know lost in the past or the person who in the future, who knows what could happen. On that note, chart number two.

Same question except Joe Biden in 2024. Yeah. Coming in at 27%. Stephen A. Smith in 28 coming in at 36%. It's an article out this morning from. where Joe Biden's first chief of staff, Ron Clean, is quoted, where he gives some backstory and the debate prep for the debate that ruined America. And he gives some anecdotes about how Joe Biden left debate prep to go to the pool and

fell asleep and how he couldn't remember things and how he was focused mostly on how he didn't think that why people weren't happier, that leaders of Germany and France thought that he was doing a good job, why that wasn't resonating more. So, I don't know. I mean, I'm kind of surprised that Joe Biden got 27% there, I guess. I would say that's maybe not a great sign for Stephen A. Smith's potential campaign that he's only coming at nine points ahead of weekend at Burmings. The guy who went to the pool before the debate.

Again, I'm with Tim on this. Chart number three. Narrowing the poll now to 654 likely Democratic primary voters. Marjorvaire now up to 4%. If the 28 Democratic primary were held today, who would you vote for? Kamala Harris coming in at 45%. Stephen A. Smith coming in at 24%. Other 17% wouldn't vote.

6%, not sure, 9%. And so this is a head-to-head matchup between Kamala Harris. Why, how would you answer that question as a recipient with this poll? You got a phone call? Somebody on the other line, Rasmuson? Wyatt's... Who would you vote for in Kamala Harris or Stephen A. Seth? What would you have said? If it's just those two, I would have said Kamala Harris. But I feel like the other thing that feels mushy here is not sure is 9%, other is 17%. Not sure and other are basically the same thing. So let's just call that fucking 26%. So it's Kamala 45, other 26% Stephen 24%. Because we don't know.

know who other is. Other could be anybody. It could be fucking Pikachu. So this, again, feels flawed to me. He's coming in third behind. Chart number four. Another head-to-head of the primary. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, 32%. Stephen A. Smith, 28%. Other, 18%. Wouldn't vote 7%, not sure 15%. The other not sure collective, 33%. So let's just call it what it is. He's still coming in third. A little discouraging for AOC. That's, that, that, this is where in the cross tabs, I was like, okay, this is getting a little dark. But that also doesn't surprise me where I think AOC would be a good candidate. I feel like if you're talking about the people who are involved in this poll,

I would imagine there are probably a number of more centrist Democrats who also view AOC in the same way that I feel like probably many centrist Republicans and then far right Republicans see her as being too left of their ideals and policies. And so I could see where she would come in at a lower number just solely based on their perception of her without her actually being able to. to go and lay out what her campaign would look like and what her goals would be. But AOC, just in the crosstabs of this, did have a net favorable rating from the people polled. So not simply people who are predisposed to not like the left, but moderates who actually did see value in her, although in this case, 32 to 28 is right at the margin of error of 4%, which again is where my brain was like, okay, Well, what about, to White's point, though, about a more, let's say, deliberately moderate positioned candidate like Gavin Newsom.

Chart five. Head to head. Gavin Newsom, 31%. Stephen A, 28%. This is bad news for Gavin Newsom. I think if you're looking at this, I mean, him and Stephen are competitors across multiple vectors now. They're both podcast hosts. Yes.

They are both potential presidential candidates. And you would think that Gavin would have a little bit more space between him and Stephen A, you know, in this situation. Governor of California has some experience. People are basically like, either seem fine. So I don't know if that's good for Stephen A or seems like it's not great for Gavin. I think still, though, great for other not sure. He's, yeah, coming in at 35%. chart number six though this is i think something like a bigger reveal um this is a head-to-head

matchup for the white house okay 2028 presidential election in a legit political poll the rasmussen reports pablo tori finds out survey more than a thousand likely american voters with the margin of error of three percent if the 28 presidential election were held today who would you vote for jadie vance 38 percent stephen a smith 34 percent and And as a person who worked in politics, Tim, this results indicates what to you? Well, it indicates that there's about a third of the country that would literally respond in favor of anybody over J.D. Vance, formerly J.D. Hamill, formerly J.D. Bowman. He did have a lot of separate names. He's changed his name several times, which I think is the sign of sociopathic. David Smith? Was it check cash?

Unlike him. I don't think it was related to check. Has Stephen A. Smith had multiple names, or is his birth name, Stephen A. Smith? I believe he has been Stephen A. Smith for decades now. I think this stands out a little bit less as encouraging for Stephen A. Smith and more as discouraging for Vance. I mean, Trump just got 49%. Right. So he's 11% below that.

Right. And I think that leads us to something that is pretty obvious, which is that he has less appealed in Donald Trump to certain groups of people. People aren't that excited by a potato face with a beard. Like if you just put a beard on a potato, that's J.D. Vance. But what if that potato also loved to post? Really loved to post. It's like arguing with people on X all the time.

Do you have any mixed feelings about Jady Vance over that? Because I got to tell you, I really dislike him at a deep level. like in my core, I find him to be probably the most unappealing person in all of public life, but he's a poster. And as a poster, I do feel like there's, I have some kinship with him that I'm grappling with. It is disturbing to be on and constantly refreshing the platform that J.D. Vance in a somewhere out there sort of scenario was also scrolling and refreshing at the same exact time. Yeah.

That's worrisome to me. But I think the point, the takeaway point is, what if it was Trump without any of the charisma and also he wasn't funny and also he wasn't even vaguely entertaining. I think truly, like part of the appeal of Stephen A, just to now get into why some might be at all energized, I think there is the part of it that is like, we are on a desert island, like in a cartoon,

and you see something and you're like, that's a steak. And it's not a steak, it's a coconut, but you're so hungry that you're like, that looks like the greatest meal I've ever had. And there is just like that dysmorphia around who and what Stephen A is actually. And then there's the added desperation and hunger for someone to just get into a debate. To own these guys.

And fucking just go after them in the way that we impotently watched the guy who went to the pool. Yeah, fast out. Go to bed instead of getting in the ring. Yeah. And I think we just want a champion who will go into a televised debate and take some big swings. I agree with this. And this was where I disagreed with your earlier statement. We kind of got distracted, but you said something like, you know, like all, the only thing he can do is talk or that like, that there's, that getting ready for the presidency is just figuring out how to talk. And it's more than that. Are we sure? Maybe that's not true, actually. Maybe ability to post and talk and to own J.D. Vance to his potato beard face is really all we're looking for right now.

But is that truly satisfying? I feel like would that truly be satisfying? Because I just think about there were moments where, like, I remember during the Obama administration where Obama went to the house. And do you remember this? Yeah, sure. And he just kind of was like, I'll take all your questions. And it was this thing where, like, people just threw questions at him.

And at that time, people were like, nobody's ever done this before. Like, he just went, and he was like there, and he was on top of it, and he got his points in, he got in some zingers, and it was like, all right, great. And he did that. And a week later, nobody cared. And it just felt like, oh, that was oxygen for just a brief little moment. Is that what we want? What we want versus what we deserve, I think, are two different questions.

To quote Batman, I believe. And the hero we might need. But like, is it more than talking? I mean, obviously the presidency is more than talking, but the better, the more appealing talker, maybe not the better talker, as like basically won every time, except for the COVID election recently.

Obama was a very good talker. Sure. The Democrats have put up the last three times, Kamala Harris, who had some skills talking but also some demerits and deficits. She was not particularly strong, speaking off the cuff. But could she have gotten better, like...

Had she had more time? Yeah. Maybe. Because I also feel like that's the one weird thing that when we're looking at this, we're looking at it with an asterisk of, okay, yeah, you ran a shortened campaign and still, like, it was close in the popular vote.

For sure. Joe Biden couldn't talk at all. I literally couldn't speak. So that wasn't great. Hillary, not exactly a dynamic talker, really. put it back to my people, Jeb. And I love Jeb, like, personally. You put the exclamation point there.

I didn't, actually. But, you know, I emotionally put it in there. Howard Dean did it. But, like, he was a terrible talker. And, you know, I do think we convince ourselves because there's this thing that, like, we want to believe it's about more than that. You know, we want to think,

we want to, you know, pull people's higher age. Think about people's better angels. And, like, think about all the serious problems that the country faces. and we need a person of depth. And it's kind of like, I don't think the people really want a person of depth unless they're a good talker.

Like, maybe we just need to accept that talking is a pretty key part of the job and that the Democrats should probably orient themselves to finding somebody who's really, really good at talking. And then all the other skills are kind of secondary. Yeah, I mean, I will see that, that, yes, there is an element of it that feels like, as president, you are,

America's spokesmodel. And so with that in mind... America's next top spokes model. Yeah. You are... You are Van der Waite just turning the letters on democracy. And with that in mind, though, I think that's also... There is that part of it that is both domestically and internationally. Could Stephen A. Smith actually, like,

would he just be seen as a joke to everyone out there? side of the U.S. when he has to go overseas and actually interact with foreign chancellors and other foreign presidents, are they just going to be like, we have a weekend Fox host running the military right now? Yeah, and I don't think anybody takes that guy seriously. Yeah, I know, but it seems like Stephen A. would be an upgrade. I don't know. But he's not the president. I bet Meta Fredrickson of Denmark would be thrilled. Does he Stephen A. Smith right now? I do just want to express as somebody who has worked with Stephen A. Smith and has been in sports for a very long time.

It is insane how plausible all of this conversation is. It is very disturbing to me, truly, that the people of our country, Wyatt, might want to just buy a vowel, and the vowel is A. Stephen A, winning by 28% in this head-to-med matchup with J.D. Vance, among black voters, winning by 12% among moderates, losing by only 2% among independents.

And I'll just speed that. through chart number seven, which is that if Stephen A were to run as an independent in a three-way matchup, now we're looking at a bit of a problem for Mr. A. Smith. J.D. Vance, Republican, 40%, Kamala Harris, Democrat, 37%. Stephen A. Smith, independent,

11%. And the head pollster at Rasmussen, Mark Mitchell tells us that, quote, he's not a spoiler, is what we're learning from these numbers. He was taking equally from both J.D. Vance and Kamala Harris. Again, speaking to the more moderate, centrist style,

handed it. I would look at this as really bad news for Kamala, actually, because you notice JD Vianz number went up when we added Kamala to the picture. So people, when it was just JD versus Stephen A, people were like, I'd like to learn a little bit more. But then when, there were two percent of the people who are like, once Kamala is even a possibility, they're like, no, fuck it. J.D. Vance, potato beard. So here's my question. I feel like his name comes up and these other names come up because there is this conversation of like the Democratic Party is in turmoil, what is the direction of the party. But I'm curious, when has there ever been a clear direction of the party? Like, when has it ever been strong? Because I don't feel like it really has.

Like, when you look back in history, it's like, okay, even when Obama was running, Obama, like, it wasn't like Obama was saying things that other candidates weren't saying. It's to your point, he was saying him better. Like at that time, he wasn't running on same-sex marriage. Like, same-sex marriage happened much later, but prior to that, he was very much openly against same-sex marriage just to woo voters. And whether he believed that in his real life or not, he was just very... charmingly playing it down the middle as closely as possible.

And to me, that raises a question of both parties seem to always be playing it as safely down the middle as they can until Trump to just kind of like win over some very specific demographic. And I think you're unintentionally making the case for Stephen A. Smith right now. You're coming out. You're coming around. No, not. Are you riding on this down? I think you're kind of unintentionally making the case for it. Because I agree.

Like, the policy part of this is, you know, you can kind of co-opt a bunch of things that are already out there. What people don't like about the Democratic Party right now is it feels leaderless and listless and it doesn't feel like there's a fight. It's not really, like, there are a couple of specific policies. Like, people were pretty unhappy with crime rising during COVID, but that's coming down anyway right now. Right. Like, there are a couple of policy things. but a lot of it is vibes. And if you look at the Democrats

who've had the most success, they haven't come out of sports journalism. But in your history, Kennedy, Clinton, Obama, they all did kind of break the mold from before, and they were very charismatic. And all of those were kind of in a before internet time, right?

So, you know, I think that the traits that were required then are even required, like, on steroids now. Sure. And so, I don't know. Again, like Stephen A. Smith, I don't know. We're about to get into the other kinds of names that they throw out there. But to me, it's like, is there a way that the Democrats could put a front man up there that, like, really doesn't change a whole lot, but makes people feel like a lot has changed? It's like, oh, man, he's fresh.

But she's new. They're fresh. They don't have the baggage of Hillary and Biden. I mean, why? To your point, he's, Stephen A's not actually even a Democrat. Like, he would be wearing sort of, like, the label. which would be a fundamental change in the product because discernibly, Stephen A is the guy who goes on like Hannity's show and talks. He's the guy who's friends with Bill O'Reilly. He's the guy on first take, argument with LeBron James.

He's not actually a Democrat in really any discernible political way, even if the Venn diagram might have him, again, as the centrist with some overlap of both parties. That's a weakness. Well, and I guess for me the question is, how much is this a Democratic candidate it and how much is this focusing energy in different ways? Because again, thinking about like any of those moments in history where we have seen like great change within civil rights, whether that was in the

60s, whether that was same-sex marriage, those things weren't coming internally from the White House. Those were external pressures from organizers, from like state legislation, from judges, from things like that that were pushing those things forward and then they eventually would get to a president's desk, but it wasn't a thing that some president was leading the charge on these things. And so I just wonder on some level how much of this is, you know, that energy that we're looking for the party, is it something that we're looking from a candidate,

or is it more when you think about those moments in time, those movements were people out? outside of direct politics who were trying to push for change and were able to mobilize people, not only in, you know, raising awareness, but mobilizing people to then get out and become a voting block that then those politicians had to actually respond to. So I think here's the fundamental disconnect with what you're arguing. Okay. Because you are looking for earnest, genuine change in reform in the country.

And what this exercise is is trying to figure out who can be a vessel for that change by flapping their jaws successfully enough to put J.D. Vance back in that fucking girl's bathroom where he hung out in high school with no friends. All right?

Like that's what the people are looking for. Somebody to put J.D. in a corner. And then after that, once you found that person, then maybe the goody-to-shoes people like you and activists out there in the world could, like, kind of provide them some sort of positive, you know, positive vision to execute upon. I just wonder if that's even, when you're talking about somebody like Stephen A. Smith and you're, and the metric now is comparing somebody to Trump, like, yeah, then it's, who's to say that, like,

a Stephen A. Smith is going to then want to do those things. I mean, I just got to remind us all that we're talking about Stephen calling. Stephen A's stuff. I don't know. How did I end up on the pro-Steven-A-Smith side of this thing? Call me S-A-S. I will end this segment

by pointing out that according to the pollster who worked with us on these cross-tabs on this data, he looked at the top line numbers and said, quote, based on what I see in these numbers, he should run.

End quote. The one thing that is missing from the Stephen A, he is trying to do this like, I'm a common-sense independent guy. And he's not like, doing that I'm really going to take the fight to the bad guys like if stephen a wanted to do this like we need first take step owning jd the way he owns skip you know like and that's not what he's giving us

no he is he is actively trying to be the guy who is the reasonable person and is actually not political yeah like he's sort of angling for that lane right down the middle is what i can tell your boy kang wrote about this yeah j caspian kang was the person by the way that why it should really mad at. I am mad at Jay. But I also know this is what Jay does. Jay just loves to fucking drop cherry bombs in the toilet. But the New Yorker, yes.

I wrote down what he wrote because I thought it was really smart. He was like, he thinks the Democrats need a hostile takeover and new candidates who stand far outside the establishment's tepid choices. The policy positions of these candidates, I believe, do not matter as long as they're within reason,

which means that everything from full-war leftist economic populism to staunch performative centristism is on the table as long as they fight the Trump assholes. That's this point. That is what the people are demanding out there somebody who is not

tepid and limp and has been in Washington forever. People are tired of being dunked on 50 times in a row and are like, can we get someone else to do that to them? Yeah. So Jay's point's like, give me an AOC, they'll take him down. Give me somebody

that's in the middle that'll take him down. Like what we need is somebody that can actually compete against them and out-meam them and own them. And that might say something really horrible about our society. It does, to be clear. Yeah, sure. But I do think that it is channeling a real feeling out there, particularly among Democratic voters. No question to me that feeling is not very ideological at all. And so this is, I think, Stephen's biggest failure, which is like if he's going to do this, he's got to be first-take guy.

Just looking at demographically how people voted. when you look at it by race, overwhelmingly non-white people vote for democratic ideas and democratic policies. White people vote overwhelmingly for Republican ideas and Republican policies. And if you look at all the last elections, and I think it's like the last 30 years of elections, it breaks down where if the Republican candidate gets 55% of the white vote, they lose. if they get 56 they win. If the Democratic candidate gets 43% of the white vote, they win, 42 they lose. And that's how it's broken down in the last five elections, I believe.

McCain got 55%, Obama got 43%. Biden, when he won, got 43%. Trump got 55%. This last time, Trump got 56%. Kamala Harris got 42%. And to me it feels like that is the thing to look at is like what is it about that one percent that it seems like both parties just seem to be playing for that one percent and when i when i hear people talk about their sort of disappointment and

disillusionment with the democratic party it might be in part because it feels as though democratic party has just sort of assumed that every other race is going to overwhelmingly vote for democratic ideas and democratic policies, and they have just chosen to get into this battle for this 1%, is it a thing where then you can bring in a Stephen A. Smith? And it's like, okay, all of a sudden, yeah, now you're going to have to, like, can you both figure out what this 1%

that these two parties have decided that they're going to fight over? Are you the person who's going to be able to argue that? And are you the person who's going to be able to instill confidence in all of the other voters, that are going to be okay with the fact that in this public thing, you are not addressing their concerns while you continue to have this fight for this 1%. I don't know what the first take demo is, but maybe.

Yeah. I mean, what I can tell you, though, is that if there is a bit of a compromise solution for the Exploratory Committee to consider, it would be, okay, what if we get a real Democratic candidate, top of the ticket? And what if Stephen A. Smith did the thing that he has loath to do in any sector of his life and be the vice president, be the secondary figure?

And so we did ask our sample of over a thousand likely American voters. Who would be the best 28 Democratic candidate for vice president? And the results were, as why it is already having his head in his hands. Mark Cuban, 14%. No. Stephen A. Smith, 12%. No. Dwayne Johnson, 12%.

No. Matthew McConaughey, 10%. All right. No. John Stewart, 9%. Oprah Winfrey, 7%. Pablo Torre, 1%. No.

Not sure. 35%. Yes! Oh, God, Mark Cuban, yeah. He did such a great job with the Mavericks. We should say that when we reached out. Well, Nico wasn't one of the ideas. Well, he did hire Nico Harrison. I do want to say...

Also, there was all that sexual harassment stuff. Well, we did reach out to Mark Cuban for comment on the fact that he pulled at 14% and Stephen A. Smith pulled at 12%. And he wrote back in an email, as this is wont, quote, I need to reconsider my life if I only beat Stephen A by 2%. No, you don't, Mark Cuban. You don't. Stay the fuck out of politics.

At the end of every episode of Pauble Tore, I find... out, a show about finding stuff out, and also torturing Wyatt Sannack and making him question his friendship with me. What did we find out today, guys? I found out that Stephen A. Smith is a viable minor candidate for the Democratic nominee in 2028, but maybe not as viable as he thinks. And I found out that LeBron James was right in his argument with Stephen A. Smith about whether he should be talking about his son, because you shouldn't be talking about somebody's son. And I found out the LeBron James might not have been right about his presence at Kobe Bryant's funeral. Yeah. Yeah. Um, Wyatt, what did you find out today?

I found out there's not enough Remy Martin to have done this podcast today. I'm taking both those bottles and whatever else you got, but that's still not going to be enough. you're both delightful people. What I really found out today is that Wyatt Senac is the new campaign manager for Other Not Sure. Other Not Sure, 2028. Put it on a t-shirt. Thank you both for doing this.

Pablo Torre finds out is produced by Walter Averoma, Ryan Cortez, Sam Daywig, Juan Galindo, Patrick Kim, Neely Lohman, Rob McCray, Rachel Miller Howard, Carl Scott, Matt Sullivan, Claire Taylor, Chris Tuminello, and Juliet Warren. Our studio engineering by RG Systems, our sound design by NGW post. Our theme song, as always,

is by John Bravo. And we will talk to you next time.