The Chris Cuomo Project - David Pakman Thinks MAGA Is Starting To Fall Apart

Episode Date: October 6, 2026

Try QUO for free PLUS get 20% off your first 6 months when you go to https://quo.com/CUOMO For free and unbiased Medicare help, dial [phone] to speak with my trusted partner, Chapter, or go to http://askchapter.org/cuomo *Paid Partnership* David Pakman (host, "The David Pakman Show," and author, “Pay Attention”) joins Chris Cuomo to discuss whether MAGA is beginning to fade, why Donald Trump has been able to normalize behavior that would have once shocked the country, and what the midterms could mean for a post-Trump Republican Party. Pakman also breaks down why fear and anger give the right an advantage online, whether social-media algorithms can realistically be regulated, the Democrats’ chances of taking Congress, and the fight over socialism and the DSA. Join The Chris Cuomo Project on YouTube for ad-free episodes, early releases, exclusive access to Chris, and more: https://www.youtube.com/@chriscuomo/join Follow and subscribe to The Chris Cuomo Project on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and YouTube for new episodes every Tuesday and Thursday: https://linktr.ee/cuomoproject #news #politics #trump #cuomo Download the Polymarket App to track the midterms. Deposit $10 get $25 with code "CUOMO": https://app.polymarket.us/S8ac/CUOMO Protect your family with life insurance from Ethos. Get up to $3 million in coverage in as little as 10 minutes at https://ethos.com/cuomo. Application times may vary. Rates may vary. Trustpilot rating as of 8/1/2026. Get 30% off Soul Mood Gummies at https://getsoul.com with code CUOMO. https://quince.com/cuomo Chapter and its affiliates are not connected with or endorsed by any government entity or the federal Medicare program. Chapter Advisory, LLC represents Medicare Advantage HMO, PPO, and PFFS organizations and stand alone prescription drug plans that have a Medicare contract. Enrollment depends on the plan’s contract renewal. While we have a database of every Medicare plan nationwide and can help you to search among all plans, we have contracts with many but not all plans. As a result, we do not offer every plan available in your area. Currently we represent 50 organizations which offer 18,160 products nationwide. We search and recommend all plans, even those we don’t directly offer. You can contact a licensed Chapter agent to find out the number of products available in your specific area. Please contact Medicare.gov, 1-800-Medicare, or your local State Health Insurance Program (SHIP) to get information on all of your options. Average potential savings are based on realized premium, co-pay, and out of pocket savings estimates self-reported by consumers that worked with Chapter Advisory LLC to enroll in a Medicare Supplement, Medicare Advantage, and/or Part D Prescription Drug Plan. The average is limited to consumers that chose to self-report. Savings information is subject to periodic updates and corrections. There is no guarantee of savings and any savings may vary by policy type, state, or other factors. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What's going to happen in the midterms? What does it take for the Democrats to take over the House? What is the biggest challenge? Is the Senate a reality? And then what is the best way for any mandate to be used after the midterms, to set us up for a better politics and a better chance of a future in the next presidential election? These are vexing questions. But there are people who study it and who are trying to boost the prospects of the left in the process.

How about David Pacman? I'm sure a lot of you have checked out the David Pacman show, and you should. This man has been in the media a long time, and he has unique perspective. I'm Chris Cuomo. Welcome to the Chris Cuomo project. It's time to be a critical thinker, and boy, am I going to give you some great food for thought. David Packman is looking at the midterms, thinking about what matters, why it'll work, why it won't. I'm going to set up his predictions against Polly Market because I'm fascinated by where people want to put their money, right?

it's so much different than just having an opinion if you're actually putting money on the line to bet. So I want to talk to him about the midterms, why Democrats may win, what the challenge could be. So here he is the man who knows, David Packman. David Packman, what is new in your world? What are you most excited about? Excited. It's tough in this world. Almost everything is negative. But, I mean, listen, I think that MAGA is starting to start. sunset a little bit. It seems as though Republicans are going to get creamed in November, and probably

rightly so. And I don't know, maybe we're starting to kind of get oriented a little bit for a post-Trump world, which there's no guarantee it'll be better, but I think it probably will. Post-Trump or post-Maga? Well, hopefully both. I mean, I think this is the thing. I'm super interested in these midterms because, you know, the polling is so lopsided, and I'm a little skeptical that it is as lopsided as the polling looks. Like, I think it'll be good for Democrats, but I don't buy that the Senate will be easy. I think it'll be tougher than the polling suggests. But I think Trump in his desperation to remain at the center of the universe is going to try to remain relevant and be the sort of reality show host of the Republican primary. And if he can stretch it out as long as possible,

between Vance and J, between Vance and Rubio and sort of making it a competition for Trump's approval he will. And I think if his approval's 29 and Republicans get crushed, they're not going to want him at the center of that. And so his Trump may sunset much sooner than MAGA, and then MAGA will see. I want to go through the polymarket bets

because I love where people put their money in relation to their mouth. I trust them more than the polls. That's not because of political science. I think it's just because of human inclination. And I think we're seeing real holes in our polling structure and who they get and how candid people are. So there's something about the money part that I like about,

you know, I think that they're going to take the Senate. Oh, yeah, you want to bet me $100? Well, hold on a second. You know, so that's why I like Pollymarket. But before I do, what's that over your left shoulder? Over my left shoulder. This is my new book, which we will soon find out whether it made any of the important bestseller lists.

We don't yet know. Pay attention. Why did you call it that? What do you want people to know? Kind of three things. I mean, there's a little bit of a confessional aspect to it. And you and I, last time I was on your podcast, you know, you confronted me in the positive sense of the word,

just about the way that a lot of us YouTubers and podcasters package content online, you know, the titles, the thumbnails, et cetera. There's a little bit of like a behind the scenes confessional aspect to it. But then my interest is really twofold. I mean, number one, if you're going to be on these platforms, which almost all of us are, you should really understand a little bit about how they work and why you're being fed the stuff you're being fed. It's not because it's the stuff that's been vetted or true or will make you a better participant in civic society. So number one is understanding that.

But I also have a political interest in it. The rights messaging naturally performs better in these algorithmic environments, not through anything special they've crafted. it's just a natural fit. And so if the left wants to get some power in order to do what they think will be better for people, you've got to learn to be better on these platforms. So that's kind of like point number three of the book. What is better? What does that mean? Why is the right better on these platforms? Why are they better and how do non-Maga have to be better? Okay. So what primarily determines whether content performs well is the reaction it generates in the viewer. And the best possible reactions are fear and anger as far as the emotions. And if you can use that

fear and anger to point to a villain, a scapegoat or an enemy, even better. So the example that I think is very useful is the COVID vaccine. Tucker and this other guy, Brett Weinstein and some others have now said a bunch of times, the COVID vaccine has killed millions of people. Now, I've found no evidence for that. I'll tell you what I have found evidence for in a moment. I found no evidence for that, but that's really good on these platforms because, number one, if you hear that, you go, well, I'm angry because someone subjected us to that. I'm afraid that myself or a family member could be the next one killed by the vaccine. I've got to get this message out. And it also creates enemies and scapegoats, whether it's Fauci or whether it's Biden, even though at one

point Trump wanted credit for the vaccine, then it became, you know, so you're angry and afraid and you've got someone to blame. You're going to share that. On the other hand, if a guy like me comes in and goes, here's the deal with the COVID vaccine. It's not very good at preventing transmission. Kind of sucks. I wish it were better at that. It's just not that good at that. But it'll really reduce your odds of dying or ending up in the hospital. And it's safe, although you might feel like you have a cold for a day. That doesn't make you angry or afraid. It's very boring. It doesn't point to any scapegoat or enemy. It's true based on all the data I've looked at, but it's not shareable in that same way. And so it's a really good example of how the true thing sucks on these platforms and the

lie naturally does really well. So how do you do better without being a bullshit artist? I think what the left has to figure out is how to center the emotional core of issues up front. So it's sort of like, we shouldn't ignore nuance and obviously we shouldn't lie. We shouldn't become bullshitters. But you've got to figure out what is the emotional core. So like, and I'm not very good at this, but if we think about housing for a second, which like housing is a tough one because it's such a problem. Everybody needs a place to live. Housing prices are up. Okay. But it relates to like zoning law and all of this municipal and state. It's very boring in the traditional sense of the word. So what's the... Illegals raised your rent is what works. Illegals raised your rent.

Untrue but effective. Right. So I think the left probably needs to find something like, if you work full time, you should be able to live where you work not 70 miles away. Let's start there. In most of the country, you can't do that on what is a minimum wage. Let's work backwards from there and then like fill in the zoning stuff. And I admit like I'm not the political messaging expert, but I'm trying to think like what is the emotional core of some of these issues. How would you isolate your own expertise? How do you see yourself, David Packman? Well, I see myself as a cog in a big system as a mere humble cog.

I mean, listen, one of the things I write about in the book is I'm every almost everything I do, 95% of what I do is on rented ground. where the landlord never has to talk to me and can change my lease at any time without even telling me, and it might take me a couple months to figure out that the lease has changed. And so, I mean the algorithms, right? YouTube, I publish at their pleasure to YouTube,

and what works changes over time, and they never tell me, and they can cut me off like that. A couple exceptions to that, like on Substack, I own my data, and we have a texting list where I also own the data. So if I get kicked off as some of these, platforms. I've got a bunch of emails and a bunch of phone numbers. But beyond that, I don't own any of the platforms. So I see myself really as someone who's trying to do the best I can to get

messages out, I think are good on platforms I have no control or say over. The algorithms, they have created a dilemma for me. I know that the reason that what you're saying is true is because of the design. It's not a glitch. It's not just a basic feature of human inclination. It is by design. They feed you those things because they have figured out that the best click rate will be through provocative things.

Right. So I am faced with what seems right, which is, well, you got to regulate these things. These guys shouldn't be able to decide what triggers us and we saw a little bit with the kids and the big settlement that they just had that you knew that this platform was going to make these kids addicted with all these this is how you look skinny and my waist is this big but my ass is this big you know you knew it was going to do it and you did it anyway worse than tobacco because it was by design you didn't just hide something that everyone

should have known about putting something on fire in their mouth but then I'm a sensor so now I'm a censor. The synthesis for me is, no, I'm not the censor. They are the censor. They are curating content. Section 230 of the Internet Act gives them a past because they're not publishers the way you are or I am or News Nation or whatever the outlet. That's bullshit. They curate content more than any outlet I've ever worked for before. So I no longer feel that I'm trying to censor them or being about censorship because I'm not about censorship. But do you think we have to regulate the algorithm and do you think it is doable? I basically don't think it's doable.

So let me go through a couple of the things you said. Section 230, is it a cop out for these platforms that because of Section 230, they have no liability for the underlying truth or defamatory nature of the content that someone like you or I post? It is a cop out for them. but the alternative would lead to news and politics just being shut down. My business is over if Section 230 has changed. Why? Because all of the platforms would say, we're not taking the risk. We're not taking the risk that David publishes something either untrue or defamatory, etc.

So they would do what happened during the adpocalypse of 2017, but worse. They would not only turn off monetization for me, they would probably just say, we're not doing news and politics. So that's the other side of Section 230. Now, as far as whether you can regulate the algorithms, it sounds sort of natural, like regulate the, but what does that mean? So here's what, let me give you the hypothetical, though, and you tell me, does it mean the government goes and tells YouTube, you must surface content nobody really wants to see? Like, do you, that, because that, I just don't know any legal framework where that works. Well, one, they did that with the fairness doctrine and the past constitutionality with no problem.

they passed equal time laws with no problem and never got booted constitutionally, right? That's because of FCC jurisdiction, though. That's right. But why does the FCC have jurisdiction? Because we say so. Yes. So you could totally change that regulatory infrastructure if you want. You can say like why.

Seems unlikely. You don't have. Yeah. So you have internet over something that's sent by an antenna, but not by a cable. But now it's beamed from a satellite. Isn't that more similar to antenna than a cable? But cable's okay. So the distinctions are meaningless.

Okay, media is media. It doesn't matter about the mode of transmission because it is all about just media culture and how it's influenced. The way to do it is, just like with derivatives, okay, a nice, complicated thing that wouldn't do well in the algorithm. You have to show us how the instrument is designed and we're going to have people who may not have the expertise of the people in your bank, but they're close. Some of them used to work in the bank. And they're going to assess how much leverage you should need to have this kind of multiple on this derivative. Okay, that's really complicated. Yes, so is this.

But you've got to have people who understand the programming and say, show me the choices. Show me why if David Packman says, that guy should be unalived. Why does that get picked up in a way that if he says pet him like a nice doggy, it does not? Why? Because it ain't random, okay? And it's not AI or super intelligence or whatever stupid-ass thing we're calling it now. It's by design. It's because you have decided with the help of some psychologists that, look, if you want the most people to want to share this, here's what you do. That's why they did it. That's what I'm saying is that you don't get to do that with any other product. You don't get to do that with any other product. You have to be able to judge. justify why you made it the way you made it. You're basically right, except I don't know if this is on purpose, but the way, the language you're using suggests that someone sort of like sat down and said, this is how we're programming the algorithm.

It's a little different, which is all of that stuff is happening because of user behavior. So what you have to remember is the reason that that's the stuff these algorithms promote is because users are reacting to it. So, like, my view is a little different. On regulation, I think that as, I don't know what the age cutoff should be, but if you're under a certain age, you should be required to be under the account

of an adult who's provided their ID and says, I'm sort of like vouching and giving permission for this person to be on the platform. So I think that that is an important thing and some age limits, et cetera. But I think that the only real way to fix this long term, and I'm thinking like long term,

is not you pass a law and you fix it tomorrow is we need to be teaching media literacy and critical thinking starting probably with seven or eight year olds the way many other countries do so that kids as they get on these platforms understand that there is an there's influence and there's all these other things behind it i think education is really the only the only way and i know that that's long term and it's boring and it's difficult and all of that stuff but i think that regulating is actually a really tough thing support for the chris poor most project comes from ethos. Now, life insurance can be tricky, can be expensive, can be a scam, got to go with somebody who is trusted and knows how to do it. That's ethos. Okay, that's why I'm suggesting

them. If you are young and healthy, you can get up to $3 million in term coverage for as little as $3 a day. You can do it all online. You can do it without going to a doctor's visit. If you're not young and healthy, they've got lots of partners to help you find that sweet spot between what you want for family and what you can afford. And here's the beautiful thing. When you decide to take on the responsibility of taking care of other people, you do not want what befalls you to have to befall them. That's what insurance is all about. Take 10 minutes to get covered today with life insurance through ethos. Get your free quote at ethos.com slash Cuomo. E-T-H-O-S dot com slash Cuomo. Application times are going to vary. Rates will vary.

Election season comes with a lot of noise, but where is the signal? That's why I'm partnering with Polymarket. They are motivating one of the most powerful mottos in politics. Put your money where your mouth is. I think it's so much better an indicator of preference in a particular race or a particular dynamic, not just what people say in a poll and maybe they're playing with the truth, maybe they're playing with identity. On Polymarket, they're playing with their own money.

And I think it's just a much bigger and serious investment of opinion. So what Polymarket is doing is giving us a better way to see where minds are in the moment based on the money. Okay, and they're worse things than not just being right, but getting some cash in your pocket as a result. And now for the midterms, Polymarket is putting everything in one place, which is very cool. Meaning what? Everything. They are putting in a hub all of the predictions, all of the analysis, all of the different races, and all of the different referenda, and all of the different betting propositions, all in one place, okay? Specific states, candidates, policies, races. So you don't have to jump around anywhere for the midterms.

It's all there, and it's all based on what matters a lot more than whimsy. Again, your wallet, all right? So there's a lot on the line this election season. There always is. But where are people willing to put their money and does it match where their mouth is? Download the Polymarket app. Stay on top of the midterms. New customers can deposit $10 and get $25.

You trade instantly if you use the code, Cuomo. I'm encouraging you to absolutely use Polymarket as a tool. And if you think you know, put your money where you're mouth. is. Let me ask you something else about the state of play, and then we'll talk about the why, okay, about, you know, what we think is going to happen here. And then we'll talk about why we think that. And we'll compare it to Polly Market. Polymarket says the U.S. Senate goes to the Democratic Party, 6239, the betting market, has it? And yeah, there's a little bit of a tightening right now, but the betting market is 62.39, you guys take the Senate. Do you believe that?

So the thing that's tough about these percentages is that they're sort of like, if you did 100 simulations with the information we have today, in 62 of them, the DEMs take the Senate. In 39, the Republicans take it. And so sometimes people will look at the results and they'll go, the thing that was 39 percent happened. And it's like, yeah, it's not that far from 50. 50-50. Like, you have to understand what this means. I think it's, so it's like, there's only two outcomes. So 6239 just tells us, you know, these are the likelihoods of these things happening. I think it's going to be tighter than 6239 suggests it will be. Yeah, I'm with you. I can't believe people are putting money on that kind of action when it's so slim. Like on the house, the same

thing. Do I understand why they believe you're going to win the house? Yes. But there are not that many seats that are up for grabs. And a lot of these races are pretty tight. And yet, on Polly Market, 91 to 9, the betting market. $9 for every one going the red. The house, every seat is up in the house, obviously, as they are every two years. And there are so many seats that were going strong Republican that are now lean Republican. And so many that were lean Republican that are toss up and so many that were toss up that are now lean left. There are so many combinations to go to the simulations analogy, there are so many combinations for Democrats to get one more seat than Republicans end up with that I think 90% probably does accurately reflect the odds there. I think it's the Senate that's the tougher one. How real is the idea of control? The Democrats win the House. All right. So now they get to staff all the committees. Okay. And Pacman is in charge of this. And then we'll see if it's just another round of impeachment or what the investigation is. Remember, I'm not a Democrat.

I know, I know. I'm just saying they're, well, you're not MAGA either, are you? No, no, no, no. And if one of them had to die, which one direction are you pointing the gun? Maga, of course. Okay. So, and I respect your clear-eyed analysis, always have big fan many years. That's why I chase Pacman to come on this show. You have no idea how hard it is. So let's say they win, but they only have a few seats. Let's say they win the Senate, but it's like one seat. That's not really control. It is for the committees. It is for the committees. But he can't, one, in the Senate, they'll lock you out, even though I've had a mind shift on filibuster. I used to be like, fuck the filibuster.

I think we need it. I think we need it more than ever, man, because you cannot have it 5149 with Supreme Court justices and all this stuff. Like you need some other margin of reasonable than just the math. So, but you don't really have control, even if the Democrats are in that situation. You'll control the committees and the business of the committees, but you're You're not passing laws because you don't have a veto-proof majority and you're going to have a hard time getting anything through the filibuster. Yeah, so I think you have to look at House and Senate separately.

In the House, of course, any majority allows you to control the committees. It allows you subpoena power. It allows you to do investigations at the committee level, which I think are actually going to be important, not because they're going to put Trump in prison or get him out of office a day earlier. But I think it's going to really mess with Trump and the people around him to be under this level of scrutiny and investigation for the last two years of his term. when he is going to want to be playing this reality show for the 2028 primary, they're just going to be mired in headline after headline about this corruption investigation and the Qatari plane and the crypto scam and all of this different stuff. But how do you balance going after him as a function of justice and having the people not feel that you're just, just us,

meaning you're just doing what's good for your party and not doing the business of them? Now the answer is, well, we can walk and shoot gum at the same time. No, you can't. No, you can't. So what is going to be your priority? How do you balance that? Well, again, the House can't pass any laws if they just have the House and Republicans have the Senate and Republicans have the White House.

So the question is, what can the House do with a one-seat majority and nothing else? So, okay, that's the House. Now, the Senate, of course, there's not going to be a super majority. So it might be 51, 49, 5248, maybe 53347. I'm not really seeing models that suggest Democrats could take a bigger margin than that. So I think what's important there is I hope that Democrats will not allow Trump any Supreme Court nominees during these last two years. They got to get their merit garland. They're owed one at this point in time.

And I hope that that means, you know, there's rumors of Alito might retire. Who knows? So I think that that's extraordinarily important. And then also, I think having the Senate will prevent Trump from getting any serious piece of legislation passed other than uncontroversial stuff. Like a lot of people go, don't allow him to do anything. There's relatively uncontroversial business that the Senate and House just kind of work together on to pass. But in terms of any like politic, you know, a beautiful health care bill that's been two weeks away for six years, if they finally get it and 10 million people will lose health care, they will get nothing. political done, which I think is important for setting up for 28. So I think your point is a good one.

Like, you have to set expectations as to what is possible. Do you believe that if the Democrats get both houses, there is a realistic chance that the president resigns? Polymarket has it, you know, what is it? 21 to 5, like 21 percent. Will he resign by December 31st, 2027? And it's like 20% say maybe. I don't think there's a chance in hell. And I am impressed that people are willing to put money on this. But what do you think? I don't think so.

And so I've heard arguments both ways. My starting point is authoritarian, egomaniacal, self-centered narcissistic people always believe they are going to get out unscathed. I'm smarter than everybody and I can talk my way out of it. I don't need to do that. I would never really consider that. And I think that basically that that is true about Trump. I think the only way he's leaving office early is if he dies in office. I really think that that's the only scenario.

Now, when I say that, sometimes people will write to mail, they'll say, you don't understand. If Trump really came to believe he was screwed, he would resign. And maybe he would even leave the country. I just don't think Trump would ever really come to believe that he screwed. And so at that, when it's the, if he believed that, that. Yeah, but he's never going to believe that. He always think, this is why you wanted to testify on his own behalf in the falsifying business records, because he always thinks he's so charismatic and intelligent. You put him up there. He'll talk his way out of it. So I don't think he resigns.

I would take the money on no on that if I were a betting man, which I'm not. Finally story today, Medicare's annual enrollment period is here. Now, this is the one time that you get to change your Medicare coverage for the coming year. And I want to make you a bet. I'm sure enough that if I'm wrong, come tell me in the comments. Here's my bet. Call chapter. They are independent Medicare advisors. They're paid on salary, not on commission to upsell you. Key, key, key.

They will compare every plan available to you against the one that you have right now. I bet you one of two things happens. One, they find that your old plan doesn't fit anymore. Doctors changed, prescriptions change, plan changed, and you are paying too much for coverage that isn't giving you what you need. In fact, most of you are likely overpaying. People who switched with Chapter last year saved an average of $1,100. So that's why I'm a little confident about this bet.

But here's the second thing that's going to happen if the first one doesn't. Chapter will look at it and say, hey, this works. Good for you. Keep it. Either way, now you know, the call is free, takes less than 20 minutes. With a deadline like this, don't bet against me. Bet on yourself and chapter. call 628-287-09-79.

6-28-287-0-9-79. And again, if I'm wrong, the comments are open. You know what's frustrating? When you're running a business, you've got like five things happening at once. The phone range, you miss it, you have no idea if that was a deal, if that was a client, if that was an opportunity, and now it's gone. That's why today's episode is brought to you by Quo, Q-U-O. It's a business phone system that's built. so you never miss a call. I've been looking at what Quo does, and I like it. Why? Because it's simple.

Calls, text, voicemails, all live in one place so your team can see the conversation of history and respond quickly. You can set it up in minutes, you keep your existing number, and you add teammates as you grow. There's no IT headache. There's no complicated setup. Quo even has an optional AI agent that can handle calls after hours, answer questions, book appointments, when your team is offline. So when money is on the line, always say hello with quo. And you can try quo for free and get 20% off your first six months at quo.com slash quomo. That's QUO.com slash C-U-O-M-O. What have you settled on as the explanation for why he is able to get away with saying and doing things? that no one else ever has

and that his base explicitly rejected in others. So this is a big topic. I mean, there's a couple things. One, it has been a slow descent over 2015 to almost 2027, these 11 and a half years that Trump has been in politics in this way, where we have been slowly but consistently desensitized,

a little bit more, a little bit more, little bit more. And so, for example, in the last 48 hours, they were ironing a red carpet for Xi, an authoritarian, and he said Canada is just one of the worst countries in the world. If we had had that in 2016, I think the reaction is different. But there's been this, like, it's a really long staircase and we're walking down one step and looking around and you walk down another step. Then all of a sudden you go, wow, I've come down a thousand steps over the last. So I think the hyper-normalization is one part of it. But then the other side of it, not with the example I just gave, but with some of this other stuff, I think that the founding fathers really didn't assume that the country would elect someone like a Trump who would attempt to do the things that he's done.

And you can decide whether this is a fair critique of the founding fathers or not. But Socrates predicted this. You know, Socrates has some interesting views about democracy, which is like, you know, it's like a pretty. good system except for the fact that eventually you let everybody vote and people can put in someone that it's a really bad idea to put in. So like this was predicted in antiquity. I think that we have shown that our checks and balances are maybe not as strong as we assume they were. That is a very interesting take, the founding fathers. I think the fundamental thing that people get wrong is one, a lot of the battles we're having right now, they had then. When they put the Constitution out for

ratification by the states, there was immediate pushback against the founding fathers. Who are these aristocrat guys who were just trying to lock in slaveholding and their aristocracy? There was, that's why they had to do the Federalist papers and send Madison and Hamilton out there and a couple other guys out onto the hustings to make the case because they could appeal to the common man. So they had that tension, ab initio. Second thing is, they never thought, according to Madison's diary, that the Constitution was a finished work.

Never. The electoral college, they laughed at it. The big states were going to leave, little states, then we're going to walk away, and it turned out, holy, you know, the big states were more worried about slavery because they were predominantly southern, and that was their no-go line,

and then you had, you know, the dirty compromise, whatever you want to call it. So the point is this. We treat the Constitution like something they did not, and we treat change the way they did not. And we trade conflict the way they did not. And yet, no one has ever destroyed the norms that this guy has. They just did something today that, David, I don't even know that I'm going to get it on the show tonight.

Okay. And it would dominate the Biden, Obama, Bush, or Clinton administrations. What is it? What is it? The guy who controls the financial markets for the government is called the control. the controller, okay? Something we never talk about. Nobody knows who the controller is. Nobody knows what a controller is. And not because we're stupid. I've literally never discussed it ever in 30 years of covering politics. State level, sure, he's your accountant. But that is the guy who controls

the markets. To come up with the architecture and infrastructure and the design for regulating cryptocurrencies. He just hired a startup that is backed by Coinbase. So they are allowing Coinbase, the biggest operator in the space, through a new, a startup company that they back to have the heavy hand and the design of regulation of them. And who does Coinbase do business with? Trump's sons, their crypto company runs through Coinbase. How? That never happens in any other administration, okay? Never happens.

Here, no one's even heard that. And nobody probably will hear it. I just Googled it. I'm not even finding articles about it. I know. So how do you know about it? It's great, because I know guys in the space. I see.

And they love to do what I'm sure are you. you have guys do to you also, which is calling me, I can't believe you guys are so obsessed with this and you're not paying attention to this. I can't believe you. You keep saying this. You know, like I have a lot of those people, men and women in my life like that. And this is one of them. We're all these blockchain guys who are now investing in blockchain and the permutations of that, you know, private equity in that space. They're like, this is crazy that the coin base guys are just going to decide the regulations. It's going to just happen. It just happened. But I'm still, it's like, we don't even care.

I think this plays a big role in Trump now saying, oh, data centers are just phenomenal. Do AI everything, data centers, everything. He hates windmills, but loves data centers. I think primarily he sees this as something he can make money from. And that's his interest. When he hears it's an industry that could be trillions of dollars. He gave an answer about AI going rogue that it was very clear he didn't even understand what that means. Like he has no idea what we're even really talking about here.

but he's like, this is a great industry, trillions of dollars. No, we got to do it. We can't let China get ahead of us. And I think all of this- Well, he also knows it's holding up the S&P 500. You think he understands that? Oh, yeah. He knows that the reason the stock market is up is the AI companies.

He absolutely knows that. And that's enough for his analysis. Well, I can't mess with that. If I lose the stock market, I got nothing going into the midterms. So stop talking about this shit blowing up. you're a bunch of pussies. You know, that's how his head works. That's where he is.

But it's like these people, law and order, they go crazy about Hunter Biden. They go crazy about insider this. We want to drain the swamp. We want to kill the deep state. And then you have the biggest alligators and the most of it ever. And the same people are okay with it.

I think it's the most bizarre political psychology I've ever covered is what's happening with MAGA. I do think that if Democrats were smart and skilled doing this the right way. The anti-corruption narrative with sort of like a populist underpinning as to like, these are the elites they were talking about kind of thing, these people who are self-enriching, etc. I think the anti-corruption narrative as a part of the 2028 platform could be really appealing,

maybe not to the hardcore MAGA people, but certainly to the Trump's skeptical Republicans and sort of, I know a lot of center-right people in crypto and in private equity. none of them like Trump. They'll concede, yeah, like his tax plan is a little better for me. Like it saved me a little bit of money with this quid deduction stuff. But like none of them like Trump. They're sort of in the Mitt Romney type space, that sort of thing. Well, they've got a built-in advantage.

You've got to remember. Republicans have a built-in advantage over Democrats. People are going to protect their money. That's what they believe. Even if you don't even really have a lot of money, you're going to work to protect your money. I mean, you know the paradox of people on the right voting for tax cuts that they're not going to get when what the Democrats are fighting for would shift the burden to reduce their taxes onto the top. They still don't like it because they want less taxes and they think aspirationally, I'm going to be that bracket. And now you're ruining the benefit of it.

Yeah. So the Republicans have that built in that people naturally are risk averse when it comes to their own money. So they don't like spending. There are polls now where the majority believe it is now Democrats, not Republicans who are better stewards of the economy, which it's been decades since that's been the case. Yeah, I think that's true. Well, it's always been true. I mean, there's pretty much any market metric you want to use. It's good.

They'll find explanations for it. Yeah. But what I'm saying is when someone thinks, is this good for my pocket, is this good for my 401K, they think about less government. they think about less taxes. They think about less intrusion. And that always plays to the right. They say it, they just don't really do it. And if they do do it, they do it in a way

that doesn't really make it any better for you. In Toronto, every arrival is a statement, and nothing says it better than this. Cadillac Optic was the number one selling luxury EV in Canada for 2025. Find your rhythm across a seamless 33-inch display and an immersive 19-speaker AKG surround audio system. This city demands agility, and Optic delivers with precision.

to make every drive extraordinary. Let's take the Cadillac. Find out more at Cadillac Canada.ca. Luxury sales claim based on S&P Global Mobility, Canadian New Vehicle Total Registrations for calendar year 2025 for the Cadillac definition of luxury. Support for the Chris Cuomo project comes from Seoul. I got to tell you, I'm big into alcohol alternatives, all right?

And I love their out of the office, THC Gummies. I love them. Now, look, well, I don't want candy. It's not about that. It's just a delivery device. And they also have sparkling beverages that are a great way to be with your friends who are having drinks and have a drink as well, but you're just not having alcohol. And it's a great brain relaxation. They've got different strengths. They have different combinations that can give you a different mood enhancement, right? There's lighter, there's heavier experiences. So what you're about, I happen to be a lightweight, even though I'm not a small person. I do have a pretty small tolerance for the THC, so it doesn't take me much. And I take the lowest dose, and I feel like I had a couple of drinks, and I have a little bit of a brain relaxation. I say that I close some of the windows I have open in my mind, and I love it.

And that's why I recommend them to you. Soul is a wellness brand that makes delicious hemp-derived CBD and THC products designed to make feeling good simple. Soul's new mood gummies have precise dosing, clean ingredients, and formulations designed for predictable effects. So you can choose how you want to feel while staying in control without alcohol. Maybe today you should make it a good day. And how do you make today a good day? Get yourself some soul gummies.

Right now, Sol is offering my audience 30% off your entire order. That's a great deal. Go to getsole.com and use the code Cuomo. GetSoul.com promo code Cuomo 30% off. Support for the Chris Cuomo project comes from Quince. Quince is the sweet spot, okay, when it comes to clothing. Quality fabrics, quality look, you know, what is de la moda, what is in fashion, but affordable. And that's what I like about it.

It's not cheap, okay? And that's what makes Quince different. I love their shirts. I love the leisure wear. I love the business casual stuff. I love the button downs. The sweaters fit me well, which is an easy, given my size and shape. But I think you will like them as well.

Find your next fall favorites at Quince. Download the Quince app for app exclusive offers or go to Quince.com. Get free shipping on your order and 365-day returns, now available in Canada and the UK, too, by the way. And when Quince asked where you heard about them, tell them, I did. Tell them Cuomo sent me. And I'm telling you, it's a great time to shop for fall. They've got beautiful things there. And you'll see me wearing a lot of Quince's products because I believe in it. And I hope it works for you as well. Why do you think it's going the left's way? Do you think it's just reaction more formation to MAGA? Do you think it's just in-party out-party? Or do you think there is something that's getting sticky about the message coming from the Democrats,

and the left. I think the main reason is people are just really evaluating how have things gone the last couple of years. And what makes me, I'd say happy. I'm never happy when people are struggling. But what I think is a good thing for the country is for public opinion to be reactive to what's really going on. Let me give you an example of the counterpoint. When Obamacare was signed into law in 2010, states had the option of doing this Medicaid expansion. And it was ultimately up to the governors in consultation with whoever the governors want to consult with. So you had the national news. Obama did Obamacare. And then you had people in red states whose governors didn't do the Medicaid expansion go, I'm poorer close to it. And I didn't get

anything. It's Obama's fault. And so there was an attribution error as to why. And it was their Republican governor, not Obama. Who didn't pick up the Medicaid expansion. Exactly. One of the things that I think is good right now in the sense that it's good to understand who is responsible, not blaming in the abstract, but like who is responsible. I think right now people are sort of understanding the promise was gas and energy would go down 50%. Gas and groceries. Gas and I feel that every day. I go to the grocery store, 120 bucks and I've got, you know, very little in the bag. People are understanding that. Housing is not only expensive, rates are higher than they've been, Who knows how long? And so this was a problem for Biden too, by the way. The Biden administration

tried to insist the economy is awesome. And people are like, yeah, it doesn't really feel that way in my household. That's happening to an even greater degree right now. And so a lot of these political things are very abstract. You know, I don't, there's Supreme Court confirmation. It's like, yeah, it's going to be tough to get people really motivated on voting on that. They might go, I didn't like this nomination or they should have let Garland through. But like, especially in a midterm. That's not going to activate voters. People are going, optional war that he said he wouldn't get into is responsible for what I'm paying at the pump. I think it's so emotionally there that that is the main thing that's going on right now. Do you think but for the S and DSA, this would be a

wipeout? Say more about what you mean. That the boogeyman of socialism, Although no, now that's not enough. Now it's straight communism. They don't even talk about socialism anymore. They just call them all communists because they've got to ramp it up, you know, for Trump, it's never enough, you know. But if that faction, that group, that ideology were called anything else but the DSA, do you think that there would be a route in the midterms? It's possible. I mean, the other side of this is also.

A lot of the people that are aligned with DSA aren't actually socialists. And I don't even know if they all understand what socialism is. Like, socialism isn't the government does health care. All these northern European countries do that. They're all capitalist countries. And so I do think that there's like a semantic thing going on to some degree. You know, the DSA thing is interesting because, and I've said this like, I'm not a socialist personally, but it's up to voters to figure out who do they want representing them.

And the answer in New York's 12th district might be different than in Florida or whatever the case may be. when there is a DSA-aligned candidate, they're only winning like 5% of the time. And so I think that it's really important to understand if you spend a lot of time on Reddit and Twitter, your perception of the popularity of DSA is going to be very different than if you're like a working Democrat in Michigan as an example. That doesn't mean they don't have support.

They clearly do and they've won some races. But I think it's a little premature to say that that is sort of what the party is hinging on right now. We need more results, I think, before we can say that. There's even these polls. There was one out today, Chris, that said, like, for the first time, 40% have a positive view of socialism. If you look at those polls, they're basically meaningless because there's a lot of confusion as to what we even mean by socialism. In my view, socialism means socializing ownership of businesses and means of production. Very few of the DSA people are advocating for that. And communism would be the state owning that stuff. It's like very few and far between the number of

people that really want that. Oh, I agree. And look, there was a poll that two out of three Democrats aren't afraid of the term socialism. Yeah, I think that's because, one, they want radical change. And you can call it whatever you want. I just want radical change. I don't know what it's going to actually mean, and that's okay because I would need to know what it means if I thought you were going to actually do it and you guys never do anything. So at least I want to go in there with the right promise structure. And the, so that desire for radical change, just like it was with MAGA, disruption, as we were calling it then, that's what they're looking at. And the other reason for it is that they know what it means. So they are like, all right, yeah, I get it. It's not,

that's not going to happen here. But it is in an election where the status quo can't be debated by the party in power. Their default has become, yeah, but they're worse. Yeah, but they're worse. I know you don't like gas and groceries, but these guys are worse. Well, then what's worse than my gas and groceries? Oh, an existential threat. So you gave them Muslims and you gave them socialism to use as a stick against change. And that's all they're about is saying, these are a bunch of terrorists-loven, Jew-hating communists. Now, I don't think that's fair or true, except for some outliers that have to own their past and their pals. Yep. But in an election that's all about their worse, you gave them a couple of,

you gave them a couple of tools in the back. Yeah, I think it doesn't really seem to be sticking as an attack line. And part of why I think it's not sticking is if you think back to the 2020 election, think about the crazy stuff from basically July on that Trump said Biden was going to do. Biden was going to ban having windows on your house. He was going to ban air conditioning. He was going to ban heating. He was going to ban burgers. And none of this stuff, he was going to take everybody's guns, just like Obama was and more guns than ever were sold.

None of this stuff happened. And so I think people are a little bit desensitized to Trump's threats. Now, if Vance or Rubio become the nominees in 28, they can probably because they are new people, although is Vance a new voice? I don't know. But anyway, they're not Trump. If they come up with new, the other side is going to do this, it might work a little better. But because Trump's been the boy who cried Wolf for so long now, I don't know that it's landing. I think Rubio, a little less so.

But Vance, all Vance is going to be dealing with from us is, so why were you okay with this? Why didn't you ever say anything when he said this? Why was that okay? And he's going to fly, they are going to fly. Post-Trump, you know, people say, oh, you know, Trump this versus. Maga, I think it's one and the same. They're going to fly back to character counts. You watch. They are going to fly back. You know what Vance's defense will be. He's been laying it out over the last year. First, it's Vance privately advised Trump against the Iran thing. Ultimately, Trump decides.

So then he'll be able to run on. I told him not to do that. Now we have the news that Vance was the anonymous source for that story. So Vance can go, I also made an effort. So he's kind of starting to set up this little bread from. He's got a lot of wood to chop. I don't know what's going to work. He's saying it's not a big deal to kick meat out. He's got a lot of wood to chop. He's got problems.

I agree. He's a shape shifter. And that ain't easy when people see your true form. David Packman, nobody I'd rather talk to about this stuff. There's a clear-eyed intelligence that transcends party and type. And I am happy for your success. Thank you. The David Packman Show, good luck with pay attention.

And thank you for talking to me. And I look forward to doing it again. Always a pleasure. smart and I love that his background informs the context of how to message in America. You know, this guys from Buenos Aires, you know, that Argentine ethnic extract and understanding differences in cultures and the sensitivities, but also obviously being deeply American and understanding what works for voters in different places in different times. And what do you think about his predictions about what we think we're going to see and why

and what will control the dynamic? and where it leads us. Questions, comments are always welcome. You got your food for thought. Now it's time for you to digest it as a critical thinker. Thank you for subscribing and following here at the Chris Cuomo project. Thank you for getting the merch and showing that you're a critical thinker and branding back against these binary bullshit messaging and show that you're an independent,

that you're a free thinker, that you're different, all right? And thank you for subscribing to Cuomo Crime Time. It's free. And we look at the big cases, not through the... intrigue and the BS true crime gossip, but the big issues that they represent that are reflections of where we are in that moment in our society. So thank you very much for giving me the opportunity. The challenges are real. Let's get after it.