The Dan Le Batard Show with Stugotz - PTFO - 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 newsletter https://wyattcenac.substack.com/ • Subscribe to The Bulwark Podcast with Tim Miller https://www.thebulwark.com/s/bulwarkpodcast Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

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 gonna 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 Giraffe King's Network. Where's your playlist taking you? Down the highway? To the mountains?

Or just into daydream mode while you're stuck in traffic. With over 4,000 hotels worldwide, Best Western is there to help you make the most of your getaway. Wherever that is. Because the only thing better than a great playlist is a great trip. Life's the trip. Make the most of it at Best Western. Book direct and save at bestwestern.com.

We have paperwork in front of us. Tim Miller, Wyatt Sennack, 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 done a couple of those. You have? For Jeb and John Huntsman. More often than 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 about this. I have a Mastodon level of knowledge. Which is that more or less? Oh no. Well, we can just watch this. I am pleading with LeBron James as a father. Stop this. Stop this. We all know that Bronnie 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 sh-t about my son. You got to stop f-cking 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 bulls**t.

He's like on a Taylor Swift tour run right now. Oh yeah, yeah, we're watching it. Yeah, I mean, we're all seeing it. He's gonna be smiling from ear to ear when he hears me talking about him in the dead. Oh my God, he's gonna get home and grab some ice cream out of the f**king freezer and sit in his chair in his tiny whiteys on the couch.

I hope you, I hope you. Which led to Stephen A. Smith going on first take and escalating all of this by saying this. I suggest that he 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 is among the attendees at the memorial LeBron James requested to not be Post, the Los Angeles Times, and Entertainment Tonight, they all list James's 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? Why would this be a slight, like what are people upset about? Bad part. Yeah, I guess that 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 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 is a book that like 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, you know, around these sorts of events. Yeah. Have you ever been to an A-list funeral?

No, I just go to the after parties. Yeah. This A-list service, to be very clear, LeBron's attendance at the memorial service turned out 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 at 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 Laker Nation, man, I will be selling y'all short if I read off this s*** so I'm gonna go straight from the heart. And then he even dunked like Kobe Bryant and he equated the dunk to the Marlon Wayans classic The Sixth Man by saying quote, Kobe came down put himself in my body and gave me that dunk on that brick. 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 Palliatory 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. 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, televised 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 24th, 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 Taurasi 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 Gigi Bryant and her level of skill, and it sounded like this. I mean, who has a turn-of-the-rate fadeaway jumper at 11? LeBron barely got it today.

LAUGHTER Is this a roast? Which is a pretty good joke. A pretty bold joke from Tarassi. 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 Pau Gasol. James Worthy. at multiple angles of the broadcast of that very direction at various points in the broadcast. And no LeBron James. You see Pau Gasol. James Worthy. James Worthy, that's right. James Worthy, your source. Coos. Coos is looking good. Coos is looking good.

Coos is outfit. Coos is wearing the big sunglasses. 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 think there's anything to go with there. No visible LeBron at all in the photography. And then what I did was confirm with multiple sources that Diana Taurasi 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 Basile. Ron Basile helped coordinate everything from Beyonce's 640 a.m. 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 bullsh**. 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 here at Poblatori, it 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 Laker's 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 f***ing 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. 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 Cowie'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 David Meneman the day after the memorial and LeBron's answer is conveniently on tape. Did you attend the ceremony? Like I said man it's just I respect your question for sure. Very emotional day, very tough day for myself, for my family, for everyone involved. One thing I can come out of saying how strong and how bold and how powerful Vanessa is, to stand up there the way she did,

to give the speech the way she gave that speech, I commend her. Her 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, celebration, but it's a difficult day for all of us. 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, they were taping it, and 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 it was a great celebration. It feels like that was the point person to untangle this. You know, if I want to, 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 it 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 I'm like who am spinning for right now? Jeannie or LeBron or Kobe's legacy and Pablo's calling me. I'm happy to be on this side of the mic, 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 return my calls? Clint, 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 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. The finals for March Mania are here and the only thing for sure is that it's the last time to bet on college basketball this season. So get in on all the action, expected and unexpected, with DraftKings Sportsbook. With live betting, exclusive content, promos and parlays, DraftKings is the ultimate college basketball destination for March. And if it's your first time, got something special just for youays, DraftKings is the ultimate college basketball destination for March.

And if it's your first time, got something special just for you, new DraftKings customers bet $5 to get $150 in bonus bets instantly. And there have been, yeah, so few Cinderella stories this year, I know, but one of them is bound to happen. And so why not use the bonus bets on the underdogs? You can bet the unexpected with DraftKings Sportsbook. Download the DraftKings Sportsbook app and use code PABLO. That is code PABLO for new customers to get $150 in bonus bets when you bet just $5. Only on DraftKings. The crown

is yours. Gambling problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER. In New York, call 877-8HOPENY or text HOPENY467369. In Connecticut, help is available for problem gambling. Call 888-789-7777 or visit ccpg.org. Please play responsibly. On behalf of Boothill Casino and Resorting Kansas, 21 and over, age and eligibility varies by jurisdiction. Voighton, Ontario, new customers only.

Bonus bets expire 168 hours after issuance. For additional terms and responsible gaming resources, see dkng.co. 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 You know, I'm half joking but I kind of mean and 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 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 Sinak. You didn't know you were joining it, but you are absolutely part of it. No, but that's also bullsh**. Like everything he's saying is bullsh**. There's just like, like he's like, oh, if I, if I put the time in, I could totally run for president. He might as well say like, ah 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 unserious 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 egomaniac wants people to talk about him, and you just did it, and you tricked me and Tim into taking part of this, and I want no 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 it Tim, damn it. I thought you were with me. I'm spiritually with you but I don't know. My shadow self is tingling. Don't let the shadow know. My shadow self is tingling. Don't let the shadow emerge.

My shadow self is tingling. I find it hard to disagree with Wye'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 White I believe expressed

as bullsh**. Is there any way that- It's going to be running the Red Team. We have a Red Team project. That's right. 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, you know, 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 want to know part of this. I'm clearly a hostage in this conversation. All we have are two bottles of Remy Martin and a hat. So yeah, I'll take some of this. I'm clearly a hostage in this conversation. All we have are two bottles of Remy Martin and a hat. So, yeah, I'll take some of this. We might need to, we might need to tip into the reserves early. But the thing that kickstarted 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, Wyatt Cenac's favorite person, a 2% chance as a wild card against the field of 15 other potential candidates for the 2028 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. Like okay that's one throwaway line in a poll. What if we committed actual time to trying to do an exclusive Poblatory 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, 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.

In fact, 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?

Let's do it. 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 at 20CC. So they have that kind of base bias here when they're trying to answer this question. 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 2028 coming in at 36%. It's an article out this morning from where Joe Biden's first chief of staff, Ron Klain, is quoted where he gives some backstory and the debate prep for the, you know, debates 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 the 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 in at nine points ahead of 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. Marja Vera now up to 4%.

If the 2028 Democratic primary were held today, who would you vote for? Kamala Harris coming in at 45%. Stephen A. Smith coming in at 24%. Other Stephen A Smith coming in at 24 percent. Others 17 percent, wouldn't vote 6 percent, not sure 9 percent. And so this is a head-to-head matchup between Kamala Harris. How would you answer that question as a recipient of this poll? You get a phone call, somebody on the other line rasping, and why it's back. Who would you vote for in Kamala Harris or Steven Aseth?

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 f***ing 26 percent. So it's Kamala 45, other 26 percent, Steven 24 percent. Because we don't know who other is. Other could be anybody. It could be

f***ing Pikachu. So this again feels flawed to me. He's coming in third behind... Who? 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, 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 go and lay out what her campaign would look like and what her goals would be. But AOC just in the cross tabs of this did have a net favorable rating from the people polled. So not simply people who were predisposed to not like the left but moderates

who actually did see value in her although in 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 Wyatt'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. 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, eh, either seemed 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. This is a head-to-head matchup for the White House. Okay. 2028 presidential election in a legit political poll, the Rasmussen reports,

Poblatori finds out survey, more than a thousand likely American voters with a margin of error of 3%. If the 2028 presidential election were held today, who would you vote for? JD Vance, 38%, Stephen A. Smith, 34%. And as a person who worked in politics, Tim, this result 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 JD Vance, formerly JD Hamill, formerly JD Bowman. He did have a lot of separate names. He's changed his name several times, which I think is a sign of sociopathic. Was it check cashing? I don't think it was related to check cashing. 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. And I think that leads us to something that is pretty obvious, which is that he has less appeal than 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 JD 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 JD Vance over that? Cause I gotta 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 JD Vance in a somewhere out there sort of scenario is also scrolling and refreshing at the same exact time. That's worrisome to me.

But I think 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. This episode is brought to you by FX's Dying for Sex on Disney+. Based on the podcast of the same name, Dying for Sex tells the story of Molly, who is diagnosed with stage 4 breast cancer. Determined to feel everything she can before she can't feel anything, she decides to leave her unhappy marriage to explore her sexuality sexuality with some encouragement from her best friend, Nikki.

FX is dying for sex, now streaming only on Disney+. Sign up now at DisneyPlus.com. 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 just go after them in the way that we impotently watched the guy who went to the pool. Yeah, passed 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 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

JD 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 and 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. And what we need. Batman, I believe. 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? 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. Right. 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

I did I didn't actually but you know I put emotionally put it in there our Dean did it the yeah but like he was a terrible talker and And you know I do think we convince ourselves because there's a 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-ange You know, we want to think we want to you know pull people's higher-age Think about the was better angels and like think about all the serious problems that the country faces And though 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 good talker. Like maybe we just need to accept that talking is a pretty key part of the job and that We 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 spokesmodel and so with that in mind... America's next top spokesmodel. Yeah, you are Vanna White 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 outside 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. 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 Frederiksen of Denmark would be thrilled to see 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-head matchup with JD Vance, among black voters, winning by 12% among moderates, losing by only 2% among independents.

And I'll just speed 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. JD Vance, Republican, 40%, Kamala Harris, Democrat, 37%, Stephen A. Smith, independent 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 JD Vance and Kamala Harris. Again, speaking to the more moderate centrist style candidate. I would look at this as really bad news for Kamala, actually, because you notice JD Vance 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. Then when, or 2% of the people were like, once Kamala is even a possibility, they're like, no, fuck it, JD 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 them 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 the 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 around.

No, I'm not. I'm not. Are we writing all this down? This is good material. 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. 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 I think that the traits that were required then are even required like on steroids now. Sure. And so I don't, 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 is 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 arguing with LeBron James. Right. 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, I guess for me, the question is how much is this a

Democratic candidate 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, like, 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 outside of direct politics

who were trying to push for change and were able to mobilize people, not only in 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. 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 JD Vance back in that f**king girl's bathroom where he hung out in high school with no friends. All right? That's what the people are looking for. Somebody to put JD in a corner and then after that, once you found that person, then maybe the goody two-shoes people like you and like 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, 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. Stephen Callme. Stephen A. Smith. I don't know. How did I end up on the pro Stephen A. Smith side of this thing?

Callme's SAS. I will end this segment by pointing out that according to the pollster Who worked with us on these 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 like 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 Stephen A owning JD the way he owns Skip, you know, like, and that's not what he's giving us. No, he is actively trying to be the guy who is the reasonable person and is actually not political. 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, Jay Kaspian Kang was the person, by the way, that Y.I. should really be mad at. I am mad at Jay.

But I also know this is what Jay does. Jay just loves to f***ing drop cherry bombs in the toilet. But he... 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 bore leftist economic populism to staunch performative centrism is on the table as long as they fight the Trump assholes. Like that's this one. Like that is what the people are demanding out there. Somebody who is not tepid and limp and, and, and has been in Washington forever. The 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 is like, give me an AOC. They'll take them down. Give me somebody that's in the middle that'll take them down. Like what we need is somebody that can actually compete against them and out meme 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 real. And it's like 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 was 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 1% that it seems like both parties

just seem to be playing for that 1%? And 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 the 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 gonna have to,

like, can you both figure out what this 1% that these two parties have decided that they're gonna fight over? Are you the person who's gonna 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 is 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 figure. And so we did ask our sample of over a thousand likely American voters who would be the best 2028 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 Johnson, 12%. No. Matthew McConaughey, 10%. All right. No.

John Stewart, 9%. No. Oprah Winfrey, 7%. Pablo Torre, 1%. No. Not sure. 35%. Yes.

Oh, god. Mark Cuban. Yeah. By the way. He did such a great job with the Mavericks. We should say that when we reached out... Wasn't Nico 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 polled at 14% and Stephen A. Smith polled at 12%. And he wrote back in an email, as this is Want, 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

okay Martin let's try one. Remember, big. You got it. The Ford It's a Big Deal event is on. How's that? A little bigger. The Ford It's a Big Deal event. Nice. Now the offer?

Lease a 2025 Escape Active all-wheel drive from 198 bi-weekly at 1.99% APR for 36 months with $27.55 down. Wow, that's like $99 a week. Yeah, it's a big deal. The Ford It's a Big Deal event. Visit your Toronto area Ford store or ford.ca today. At the end of every episode of Public Torrey Finds Out, a show about finding stuff out

and also torturing Wyatt Cenac 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 that Lebron James might not have been right about his presence at Kobe Bryant's funeral. Yeah. Yeah. 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 W Wyatt Sinak 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, Nealey 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.