The David Pakman Show - 10/3/24: Trump crimes bomb goes off, staffers won't admit 2020 loss

Episode Date: October 3, 2024

-- On the Show: -- A deep dive comparing and contrasting various election prediction models, including 538, RealClearPolitics, Nate Silver's "Silver Bulletin," and many more -- Prosecutor Jack Smith's legal filing detailing Donald Trump's desperate criminality after losing the 2020 election is released, and it is stunning and damning -- Donald Trump loses his mind over the newly-released legal filing that exposes his post-election crimes -- Donald Trump admits that he will attempt to deport legal immigrants to the United States if he becomes President -- JD Vance desperately tries to do damage control after refusing to answer whether Donald Trump lost the 2020 election during the recent Vice Presidential debate -- Donald Trump slurs throughout his entire interview with Dave Ramsey, casting doubt on the claim that his slurring during the Elon Musk interview was due to a technical issue -- Trump staffer Corey Lewandowski is reduced to sputtering when asked whether Donald Trump lost the 2020 election -- Voicemail caller says David is dressing like a fascist -- On the Bonus Show: Skydiving instructor gets prison time after 28 deaths in their watch, liberal watchdog group considering buying Alex Jones' Infowars, the $20 fast food minimum wage in California results in no job loss and a slight increase in prices, much more... 🌱 Ounce of Hope: Get 20% off with code PAKMAN at https://ounceofhope.com 🪟 3 Day Blinds: Buy one get one 50% OFF at https://3dayblinds.com/pakman ⚠️ Try Ground News and get 40% OFF the Vantage plan at https://ground.news/pakman 🛡️ Incogni lets you control your personal data! Get 60% off their annual plan: http://incogni.com/pakman 🥄 Use code PAKMAN for $5 off Magic Spoon at https://magicspoon.com/pakman 💵 Sponsored by Ridge Wallet: Use code PAKMAN for 10% OFF at https://ridge.com/pakman 🩳 SHEATH Underwear: Code PAKMAN for 20% OFF at https://sheathunderwear.com/pakman  -- Become a Member: https://www.davidpakman.com/membership -- Become a Patron: https://www.patreon.com/davidpakmanshow -- TDPS Subreddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/thedavidpakmanshow -- Pakman Discord: https://www.davidpakman.com/discord -- David on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/davidpakmanshow -- Leave a Voicemail: (219)-2DAVIDP

Speaker 1 Speaker 2 Speaker 3 Speaker 1 Speaker 4 Speaker 5 Speaker 6 Speaker 7 Speaker 8 Speaker 9 Speaker 10 Speaker 11 Speaker 12 Speaker 13 Speaker 14 Speaker 15 Speaker 16 Speaker 17 Speaker 18 Speaker 19 Speaker 21 Speaker 22 Speaker 23 Speaker 24

Speaker 24 Speaker 25 Speaker 26 Speaker 27 Speaker 28 Speaker 29 Speaker 30 Speaker 31 Speaker 32 Speaker 31 Speaker 32 Speaker 32 Speaker 34 Speaker 35 Speaker 36 Speaker 38 Speaker 39 Speaker 41 Speaker 42 Speaker 42 Speaker 43 Speaker 45 Speaker 41 Speaker 42

Speaker 43 Speaker 44 Speaker 45 Speaker 45 Speaker 46 Speaker 46 Speaker 47 Speaker 47 Speaker 48 Speaker 49 Speaker 50 Speaker 51 Speaker 52 Speaker 51 Speaker 52 Speaker 53 Speaker 54 Speaker 56 Speaker 56 Speaker 57 Speaker 57 Speaker 58 Speaker 59 Speaker 51 who, while losing his grip on the White House, quote, used deceit to target every stage of the electoral process. This is a new court filing that was previously filed by special prosecutor Jack Smith, but has now been ordered released by the judge. And it reveals the desperate nature, the erratic nature, the unhinged nature of a failing president, then President Donald Trump, who was losing his grip on power and was willing to do whatever the hell it took to try to stay in power. Quote, So what?

The filing quotes Trump as saying to an aide when he was told Mike Pence has been rushed to a secure location because the violent protesters are shouting, hang Mike Pence. Trump's reaction. So what? Another Trump quote, the details don't matter. That's what Trump said when he was told by an adviser that a lawyer who was mounting his legal challenges wouldn't be able to prove the allegations in court because they were made up. Trump said the details don't matter. He wanted the challenges filed.

He wanted everything going forward, including fundraising for this from his supporters, many of whom really couldn't afford to be giving Trump money for this absolutely ridiculous wild goose chase. Trump intentionally lied to the public, to state election officials, to his own vice president. If we believe this filing, it points to Trump knowing he didn't really win. We've asked this question rhetorically, but also in reality, did Trump ultimately convince himself that he really won delusional,

delusionally deluding his cell himself? Or did Trump know he didn't win throughout this whole thing and was knowingly lying? This filing, this is one data point. This filing points to Trump knew he didn't win. He didn't care. He wanted Mike Pence to make an unconstitutional attempt to deny Joe Biden the victory. He wanted state officials to make an unconstitutional attempt to deny Joe Biden the victory. He wanted state officials to challenge or overturn results. He knew he lost, but he was still telling them, I don't care. You should do it anyway. You should do it anyway.

Trump, according to this filing privately, described some of the very claims he was pushing publicly as, quote, crazy. Let that sink in. There were voter fraud claims that you knew were crazy, that I knew were crazy, that we knew when Rudy Giuliani would tout them in one of those covid hearings where he gave people covid. The hearings weren't about covid. He had covid at the hearings. We all knew they were crazy. Trump privately knew they were crazy. And yet people around Trump and Trump himself continued to push these lies. All of a sudden, J.D. Vance is non answer.

During the debate the other day when he was asked, did Trump lose it? All of a sudden looks much, much worse, given this documentation that Trump knew all along that these were false and fraudulent claims in the filing. Jack Smith calls out Trump's Waco, Texas rally. This is one of the other great things. It's in a way not good that these trials keep getting delayed. But in another way, it continues to allow Jack Smith to add more elements into the filings in the filing. Jack Smith points to a rally Trump did in Waco, Texas,

where he called the violent insurrectionists patriots and hostages and played that revised version of the national anthem sung by some of the J6 defendants. We call that the treason national anthem at the time. And Trump said he would pardon a bunch of them. That now is part of this filing. And maybe most importantly, this filing points to a sharpening legal focus on Trump acting privately rather than in his official capacity. This is going to be a critical aspect if and when this trial goes forward, which is that Trump's lawyers, as we've told you, have been arguing, including before the Supreme Court, that Trump has immunity for all or almost all of these actions because they were carried out as part of Donald Trump's role officially as president of the United States.

This filing from Jack Smith contests that it argues that none of what Trump was doing was as a government official, but was rather as a candidate. And therefore, it would not be protected by immunity. The fraudulent elector schemes arguing that Trump had a personal role there, not an official role as president, but a personal role, and therefore it is not protected by immunity. Trump's social media use his Twitter account, his troth central account, etc. That was all Trump, the candidate, not Trump, the president, and therefore you can't cite immunity. Imagine for a moment if Trump's Twitter account ended up being his downfall, it would really be the icing on the cake.

And finally, that Trump attempting to interfere with state electoral processes. Remember, I need 11000 votes. Give me a break. The argument from this filing is that that was also Trump, the private citizen candidate for the presidency, not Trump, the sitting president of the United States. It is undoubtedly a convoluted and complex legal proposition to prove that. But it is clearly the argument that Jack Smith is making. The question I got from many of you about this filing overnight

is, David, is this the October surprise that we've been wondering, will it come? I don't know the answer to that, that this is certainly an October surprise. But is it the final October surprise? I don't know. And if I'm perfectly frank with you, I don't know that anyone who is still supporting Trump will be swayed by a filing that they will simply say it's crooked Jack Smith working at the direction of Joe Biden. That's the storyline Trump is told, even though it's not true. I don't know that this will really sway too many people, but it is triggering one particular orange man.

And that's what I want to talk about next. Donald Trump absolutely flying off the handle, losing his mind after this bombshell legal filing from prosecutor Jack Smith was released. We already went over the details. It sent Trump on a total and complete bender. Here is what Trump had to say. All of these posts coming on Donald Trump's failing social media platform, Truth Social Trump starting yesterday afternoon, quote, The release of this falsehood ridden unconstitutional

J6 brief immediately following Tim Walz's disastrous debate performance and 33 days before the most important election in the history of our country is another obvious attempt by the Harris Biden regime to undermine and weaponize American democracy and interfere in the 2024 presidential election. Deranged Jack Smith, the handpicked prosecutor of the Harris Biden DOJ and the D.C. based radical left Democrats are hell bent on continuing to weaponize the Justice Department in an attempt to cling to power. Trump is dominating the election cycle, leading in the polls, and the radical Democrats throughout the deep state are totally, quote, freaking out. This entire case

is a partisan, unconstitutional witch hunt that should be dismissed entirely, just like the Florida case was dismissed. Trump continuing. And you can see the rage building by the number of capital letters he uses. The Democrat Party is guilty of the worst election interference in American history. They are trying to destroy our democracy, allowing millions of people to enter our country illegally. They are determined to stop us from winning the back, the White House, sealing the border and making America great again. But they will fail and we will save our nation.

Trump continuing Democrats are weaponizing the Justice Department against me because they know I am winning and they are desperate to prop up their failing candidate, Kamala Harris. The DOJ pushed out this latest hit job today because J.D. Vance humiliated Tim Walz last night in the debate. The DOJ has become nothing more than an extension of Joe's and now Kamala's campaign. This is egregious prosecutorial misconduct and should not have been released right before the election. The Democrat Party is turning America into a third

world country that tries to censor, harass and intimidate their political opponents. What they have done to our justice system is one of the great all time tragedies. I should interject here as we go to the next post that none of this is true in case that lest there be any doubt. Trump then continuing engaging caps lock election interference. And then finally, in all caps for 60 days prior to an election, the Department of Injustice is supposed to do absolutely nothing that would taint or interfere with a case. They disobeyed their own rule in favor of complete and total election interference. I did nothing wrong.

They did. The case is a scam, just like all of the others, including the documents case, which was dismissed. Now, with regard to Trump saying 60 days prior to the election, Trump did not have the same concerns when in 2016, just before the presidential election, James Comey came out and for a reason we still don't understand, held another press conference about the investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails. Trump welcomed that. In fact, he cited it and said, look at what's going on with Hillary. You've got to vote for me.

Of course, it is not about principle. It is about what's good for me right now. Trump believes this filing is bad for him right now. Trump believed James Comey's Hillary Clinton presser was good for him in 2016. And it was there's no doubt. And that is the only thing that Trump actually cares about. Now, my immediate reaction is there's really no reason for Trump to flip out like this because the people that are currently voting for Trump do not care about this filing. You think

they're going to read this, however many page, 195 page or something filing. You think they care that CNN reports on it? No, they don't. Now, Fox News did report on it, and we're going to get to that later or tomorrow if I run out of time. But if I were Trump, as is always the case, I would say nothing about this. And most of his followers probably wouldn't even hear about it. You know, in the past, every time I move to a new place or it's time to redecorate, the one thing I have no clue about is window treatments. What's the best color? What's the right type of blind? What about this weirdly shaped window? I don't know how to install them. And that's why I turn to three day blinds for blinds, shades, shutters and drapery. Our sponsor, three day blinds is the

leading manufacturer of custom window treatments in the US. And my audience can buy one and get one 50 percent off. Three day blinds has local professionally trained design consultants who can come to your home, guide you on the right blinds for you. If you're not handy, no problem, to the David Pakman show three day blinds dot com slash Pacman. That's buy one, get one 50 percent off when you head to three day blinds dot com slash Pacman. One last time. That's the number three. D.A.Y. blinds dot com slash Pacman. The link is in the podcast notes. Did you know that countless commercial databases and people search sites are storing your personal information? Anyone from an employer to a former partner can use these platforms to get details about your online presence, your home address, phone number, email, license plate,

family members, financial information, even political views. Europe has laws that offer some protection. But in the US, the data is widely accessible. Even the FBI will buy this information from companies to spy on people without a search warrant. Our sponsor, Incogni, provides a solution. It takes just seconds to sign up and Incogni will send removal requests to all of the major data brokers, legally compelling them to get rid of your data. Incogni keeps you informed throughout the process. You'll get real time updates who has complied, which ones are still pending. They'll handle follow ups. They'll handle appeals on your behalf. And this will save you hundreds of hours. Very few people have the time or resources to do this on their own. This service can also reduce the number of spam calls and emails you get since many

solicitors and scammers get your information from these very same sources. Go to Incogni dot com slash Pacman and use the code Pacman for 60 percent off. That's I N C O G N I dot com slash Pacman for a huge 60 percent discount. The link is in the podcast notes. Many of us loved eating breakfast cereals as kids. But now that we're adults, you don't want all the sugar and the carbs, which is why I love our sponsor Magic Spoon, The David Pakman Show David Pakman dot com. The Magic Spoon cereal has 13 grams of protein, zero grams of sugar and four net carbs. So you can feel good about what you're eating. The most popular flavors are fruity and cocoa, but there are many more. And if you're already a fan of Magic Spoon, I have big news. Magic Spoon has turned their super popular cereal into high protein treats that are light,

crispy and crunchy and taste just like the classic crunchy cereal bars. Magic Spoon treats have become a favorite go to snack because it's an easy way to get 11 grams of protein on the go. And for the first time ever, Magic Spoon treats are available in grocery stores with delicious flavors like marshmallow and chocolatey peanut You know, one of the conversations I frequently have in the real world when people meet me and they learn what I do is they say, right, OK, you do the show, but what's your full time job? And I explain, no, this is my full time job. And they say, wow, can you really can you really make a living doing that?

And of course, the answer is yes, depending on how your show is funded. An easy way is you just get hired by some big corporate media company. You have layers of editors and you can be fired at any time if you say the wrong thing. And by wrong, I mean something your editors don't want you talking about. The alternative is what we do, which is we're funded directly by our audience. No one person can influence what we do say or the positions that I take because all they can really do at the end of the day is threaten to pull their three or six dollars a month in funding or their 60, 70 bucks a year. They are free to do that. And I'm free to continue

doing the show the way I want to do it. And it gives us an independence that many in corporate media simply don't have all of this to say. If you like the show and you value the independence of the show, I invite you to consider signing up at join Pacman dot com. We offer a suite of perks for our subscribers, including an extra show every single day called The Bonus Show, which Alex Jones despises. Oh, the bonus show where you want to make money. Everybody else that makes money to fund themselves is bad. Yeah, well, we're funding ourselves, Alex. Thank you very much.

Maybe we'll buy Info Wars, which is now up for auction with some of the membership money. Actually, there is a liberal group looking at buying Info Wars, but we'll talk about that on the bonus show today. We also provide commercial free audio and video streams of the show every day for our members and so many other things. So consider it. Consider signing up at join Pacman dot com in a disgusting new interview with News Nation, Donald Trump has admitted that he would deport legal immigrants if he feels like it. Donald Trump told the interviewer, Ali Bradley, that even though the Haitian migrants in Springfield, Ohio, are here legally under a framework that's been the law for decades called temporary protected status. Since Trump feels like they are, quote, overrunning Springfield, he would simply revoke their protected status and deport them. This is a dangerous lunatic who does not respect

the rule of law, despite claiming to be the candidate of law and auto or sometimes correctly said law and order. Trump's mass deportations will include legal immigrants. Listen to this. Springfield is such a beautiful place. Have you seen what's happened to it? It's been overrun. You can't do that to people.

They have to be removed. So you would revoke the temporary protected. Absolutely. I'd revoke it and I'd bring them back to be removed. So you would revoke the temporary protected. Absolutely. I'd revoke it and I'd bring them back to their country. I would send them back to their country. This is one of the bigger dangers of another four years of Trump. It's way bigger than the immigrants. But I'm going to get back to the immigrants in a moment.

You don't like the Iran deal, even though Iran didn't violate it. Cancel it. That's what Trump did. Don't want to be part of the Paris climate agreement, even though we signed on to it. Get out of it. Don't want to meet your responsibilities under NATO for shared defense of NATO allies. Say you won't do it unless they start paying more because you say they should be paying more. And then at the tail end of this, now you don't like some specific immigrants who have legal status under the law. Just revoke it and kick them out.

Now, whether Trump would in fact be able to do this is a different question. But his desire to do it alone is disgusting. Green card holders can be deported if they commit certain crimes. That's part of the law right now. That's not about a president saying, I don't like you and I don't like you. And I now have to because I said something really stupid. I said they're eating the cats. They're eating the dogs because I said that. And it was stupid. Now I need to make good on it, sort of like I used the Sharpie to change a hurricane map to make myself look right. I now am going to just say, I don't like you being here.

That's not the point of the law around green card holders being deported if they commit certain crimes. Those who hold temporary protected status, they can be deported if they commit certain crimes. Legal immigrants who are refugees or asylees could be subject to deportation if they are convicted of crimes or if there's evidence that they pose a national security threat. If a legal immigrant is found to have obtained that legal status because they lied or committed fraud or misrepresented their situation. For example, if you claim asylum and then it turns out you made it all up,

the circumstances you described in your home country aren't true. You are subject to deportation. You need a legal finding in order to determine that. And then if you step back, presidents might have some broader authority to deport legal immigrants who are determined to be national security threats, but they would need to be determined to be national security threats through due process. Trump's not talking about that. Trump's just saying the Haitian migrants in Springfield with temporary protected status, we're going to kick them out.

The whole point of temporary protected status was there are people from countries suffering from war, disaster, authoritarian rule, political persecution, et cetera. And we want a framework to give them a safe place to stay while maybe their home countries recover. Maybe they don't. When you say I'm going to go after immigrants who have followed the rules we've established, you can say, I don't think we should give asylum to people. OK, we'll make that case. That sounds antithetical to what the U.S. is based on. But you can argue, I don't think we

should give asylum to people. Fine. But it's been the law for decades and they did what they are required to do. Many of them have built lives here. Forget about the fact that they're actually contributing very positively in Springfield, Ohio, and were invited to go there. Trump is showing disregard not only for the humanitarian aspect of this. He's showing disregard not only for the economic aspect of this. He's also showing disregard for the law because this is what the law says they're supposed to do.

And they did it. And what's especially troubling is that the plan targets people who are not only here legally, but they are here legally under a framework which many others are also here legally under. But Trump is only talking about the Haitian migrants in Springfield, Ohio. If you really wanted not that I would support it, but if you wanted to appear to be applying this in a fair way, you would say, I'm not just going to target target Haitian migrants in Springfield.

I'm going to target everyone who is here with a certain status. It's still unclear whether it would be legally justified. It's doubtful whether he would actually succeed. But at least there would be the appearance of being about the law and not about these specific, let's be frank, black migrants from Haiti. Trump is not doing that. The only. Silver lining, if there is one, is that maybe Trump wouldn't be able to actually do this, but the fact that he wants to is reason enough not to vote for him. J.D. Vance is now desperately trying to save himself after his brutal non-answer during the debate against Tim Walz, where Tim Walz asked, did Trump lose in 2020? And J.D. Vance refused to

answer. So yesterday, the day after the debate, J.D. shows up in Auburn Hills, Michigan, Michigan, of course, a critical swing state. And J.D. Vance drops the aw shucks bid. Oh, you know, Tim, you're so cool. And I love that. You know, I didn't know about your kid witnessing a mass shooting and just this offshock stuff from Appalachia. You knew this was going to happen. J.D. Vance now going on the offensive against Tim Walz, attacking and insulting him. He wasn't really a nice guy during the debate.

He was just playing one. It was all strategic to make himself more likable. Here is something closer to the real J.D. Vance. Now, it's funny because, you know, we did this debate and then I talked to the president afterwards and we talked a little bit about, by the way, what actually the reference of to Trump as the president. Give me a break, dude. We happened and, you know, some of the points that I made, some of the points that Governor Walz made, and he made this observation. He said that Tim Walz said that he was friends with school shooters twice.

And that's something I actually didn't notice that Tim Walz had said that on the debate stage. And I said, did he really say that, sir? And he said, I'm telling you, man, go and watch the clips. Now, I noticed that when Tim Walz said that, I assumed what he meant was he was friends with school shooting victims. It's not really like the biggest deal. He said he was friends with school shooters twice. And I said that was probably only the third or fourth dumbest comment Tim Walz made that night then. Because look, I got to be honest, I feel a little bad for Governor Walz.

There you go. He feels bad for Governor Walz, even though every post debate poll says it was basically a 50 50 debate. So ultimately, J.D. is asked during this event in the event in Auburn Hills, why wouldn't you just answer who won the election? Like, just just answer it. It's not that complicated. And of course, the crowd boos that he's even being asked this. J.D. gives another ridiculous answer and Fox News decides to cut away. It's sort of the trifecta with some elected

officials or election officials last week about their concern about people who are trying to undermine our elections. Why didn't you answer the question last night during the debate about who won the 2020 presidential election? Well, look, here's here. Here's the boo boo. People asking real obvious questions for reason. The media is obsessed with talking about the election of four years ago. I'm focused on the election of thirty three days from now because I want to throw Kamala Harris out of office. Imagine people clapping to reinforce that J.D. is right not to answer the most basic question, who won the 2020 election? The crowd is clapping. That's how you know they're in a cult. common sense economic policies. But I also think you can believe that America needs to have secure

and free elections, but also talk about the fact that just a couple of weeks ago, Democrats in the U.S. Congress blocked a piece of legislation that would have ensured illegal aliens don't vote in our elections. If you believe in American democracy, if you believe in our constitutional republic, you should be trying to strengthen American election integrity and not weaken it. So we're going to talk about election integrity because I believe that every vote ought to count, but only the legally cast votes, and that's why we fight for election integrity, and that's why we care so much about it. Now, now, this is a very important place for the next 33 days, that's for sure. And that.

So there is Fox News cutting away. You know, I got to give J.D. credit. His makeup looks great. Like I did. I mean, his eyeliner looks fantastic. What is it? The eye shadow? It looks like mascara. It really looks great. But that's about the only compliment I can give him for this speech. He says that it is a question of looking forward rather than looking back. But if you don't even acknowledge who won in 2020, why on earth should we be looking forward since you're just completely wrong about the most basic facts? Now, I have one other clip to play for you, which is maybe the most blatant projection I've seen from J.D. for a while.

It's about Kamala Harris. Listen to that. One of the things that people in D.C. say about Kamala Harris and it's Democrats that say this, it's people she served with in the Senate and it's also Republicans. And of course, they say this in private, but they'll say Kamala Harris. And it's Democrats that say this. It's people she served with in the Senate. And it's also Republicans. And of course, they say this in private, but they'll say Kamala Harris is very insecure. She doesn't like to be challenged. If you don't like to be challenged and you don't like to engage in open debate, you should be nowhere near the Oval Office of the United States of America.

What's really funny is that it's hard to think of a more insecure behavior than J.D. being unwilling to even acknowledge Trump lost in 2020 because he's scared and insecure. Trump might kick me off the ticket. He might throw me under the bus if I just acknowledge that he lost in 2020. Talk about insecurity. Talk about insecurity when you were presented with your quotes about Trump being America's Hitler and being horrible in every way and text messages and podcast interviews. He said this dozens and dozens, maybe hundreds of times. And you're presented with that and you can do nothing other than say, listen, it's no secret.

I had sometimes differences with the president, but he's great now. He's great. He's the leader we need. That's really the insecurity. Not Kamala Harris. J.D. is the pinnacle pinnacle of what they love to call beta behavior. Their word, not mine, not the way I categorize behavior, but it fits that if the shoe fits, as they like to say, J.D. is in damage control mode. I expect to see it continue. And one of the reasons I expect to see it continue is because of the disastrous interview Trump gave to Dave Ramsey.

We'll talk about that later. Let's take a break. Make sure you're subscribed on YouTube at YouTube dot com slash the David Pakman show. For years now, I have been using a Ridge wallet. I've had a Ridge wallet at this point way before they became a sponsor. They are celebrating their 11th anniversary. A Ridge wallet can hold up to 12 cards plus your cash and it stays flat and comfortable in your pocket. So much slimmer than anything I've used. I don't want to throw my back

off kilter like happened to George Costanza with one of those oversized wallets. So this is great. You can choose from over 30 colors and styles, including ceramic powder and leather. It was Thank you so much. which can be used to secure one to six keys and importantly, prevent the keys from jingling. Ridge has over three million customers, over one hundred thousand five star reviews. It's the wallet I've been using for years now. And if you don't love your Ridge product, you can send it back for a full refund up to a full year after you buy it. Comes, of course, with a lifetime warranty because of the extra durable material. after the show. offering top shelf psychoactive THC products with an earnest commitment to giving back. Ounce of Hope operates an aquaponic cannabis farm in Memphis, where the nutrient rich water from the fish is used to feed their cannabis plants. This method not only produces top tier cannabis,

but it helps the local community. The surplus fertilizer supports schools, gardens, small farms in the area. One of their first standout offerings is a jar of delicious honey infused with a thousand milligrams of THC. This raw, unfiltered honey is locally sourced, perfect for adding a calming touch to your day, whether you mix it into your tea, coffee, spread it on toast or use it in a recipe. This honey brings natural sweetness and relaxation. They have THC brownies, chocolates, caramels, gummies, beverages, soft gels, oils and topicals. They also have CBD options. All of these products are federally legal. No medical card needed. And you can get it fast with two day FedEx shipping since they grow all of their cannabis in The David Pakman Show out of hope dot com. Use code Pacman for 20 percent off.

The info is in the podcast notes. Who is going to win the 2024 presidential election? This is the million dollar question we're going to have to wait a few more weeks to find an answer to. But we have ways to predict who has the best shot at winning polls, historical trends, prediction markets, qualitative analyses and many other ways. Everybody has an opinion about which, if any of these can or should be trusted. Some say you can't trust the polls. Others say you can't trust these particular polls, but you can trust those polls. You can look at these other indicators or scientifically supported meta analyses.

And most people I'm hearing from about this issue say, David, you're looking at it all wrong. Here is the one right way to evaluate all of these different metrics. Well, what I want to do today, because I think it'll be useful not just for the next month, but beyond in general, in applying principles to these different models, is I'm going to compare and explain some of these different approaches, starting with one that I use, which is the real clear politics sort of platform. One way to assess who has the best shot at winning the election is to take a look at the polling averages for all of the swing states and assume whoever is leading in the state right now will eventually win that state. Arizona in a month. So we will start by applying that idea to the real clear politics voting

average and then use 270 to win as our map system for electoral votes. So on 270 to win, we'll clear the battleground states for a moment. We'll give the clear blue states to Kamala Harris, the clear red states to Trump. And this leaves seven seven swing states, Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. So at the starting point with the sort of in the bag states, you see Kamala Harris starts with two twenty six and Donald Trump starts with two nineteen to seventy is what you need to win. Now we look at the polling averages and we see that Kamala Harris is leading Nevada,

Wisconsin and Michigan, while Donald Trump is currently leading Arizona, North Carolina and Georgia. Pennsylvania is tied right now, right down the middle, looking at the RealClearPolitics average of polling in Pennsylvania. If we assume that these aggregate polls are correct and we assign the states accordingly, we see that without Pennsylvania, neither candidate gets the 270 they need. And it would all come down to Pennsylvania, which, again, right now is tied in the real clear politics polling average. Now let's look at 538, one of the most popular election forecasting models. First question, how does this model work?

The real the 538 model calculates polling averages, applies adjustments for temporary bounces that happen after party conventions. And it recognizes that polling averages are influenced across states based on similarities in voting history, demographics, geography. So, for example, a polling change in one state might affect similar states in the same political region. Beyond polling, the model uses 11 economic indicators. It considers nonfarm payrolls, inflation, stock market performance. These indicators are standardized and transformed into daily measures of growth. It also considers political factors like incumbency. And in 2024, arguably, that's less relevant since Joe Biden is not running. Kamala Harris is a

semi incumbent, makes it a little more complicated. And according to the 538 model, as of today, Kamala Harris wins 58 out of 100 simulations with today's data. And Donald Trump wins only 42 out of 100 simulations using today's data. The way that this works is the model runs a thousand simulations accounting for slightly different factors. And as of today, Kamala Harris leads in most of those factors. So that's 538. Now, many of you will write to me and you'll say, David, you should only consider Nate Silver's silver bulletin. Others write in and say, David, you should not consider Nate Silver's silver bulletin because he is not trustworthy. OK, well, let's explore it. The silver bulletin is Nate Silver's new project since he left 538. This model is based on the

original forecasting model created by 538, adapting its methodology for the 2028 election and omitting COVID-19 related adjustments from 2020. The Silver Bulletin differentiates between registered and likely voters. The idea there is ensure that the polling data reflects more accurately who is actually going to vote. And the model also accounts for House effects. These are biases that certain polling organizations may have. And by doing this, the idea is you minimize the influence of skewed results from any single pollster. Some of you write to me and you say, you know, real clear politics includes some right wing pollsters that I don't believe should be included. If you believe in what Nate Silver is doing, he's accounting for that. More reliable polls

are given greater weight in the averages and that, in theory, stabilizes the overall polling results and reduces the impact of these outlier polls. As of today, based on the Silver Bulletin's polling aggregation, Kamala Harris is winning Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Nevada. Donald Trump is winning North Carolina, Georgia and Arizona. And again, pulling out the 270 to win map, if we use these numbers which give Pennsylvania to Kamala Harris, Harris gets 276 electoral votes and wins the presidency. The Economist has a model which assesses the probabilities of Kamala Harris and Donald

Trump winning individual states as well as the overall election. The forecast starts with predictions from the national popular vote. It leverages national polls and what it calls fundamentals. These are structural qualitative factors that influence voter behavior. And then it goes beyond national predictions. It assesses individual state outcomes by calculating each state's partisan lean. It considers past election results, the home states of candidates and economic indicators. The model starts with a prior prediction based on historical data, updates it with new polling and generates a posterior forecast. This model recognizes polls are limited. There are sampling errors. There are non sampling errors. And right now,

this forecast model predicts Kamala Harris having a 60 percent chance of victory and Trump a 40 percent chance of victory. Next, we go to Alan Lichtman. Alan Lichtman was on the show a couple of times recently. His model is the 13 keys. Earlier in the election in September, Lichtman predicted that Democratic nominee Kamala Harris would win. Lichtman has accurately been predicting elections since 1984 with some controversy as to whether his model previously predicted the electoral victor versus the popular vote. He says he has changed what he's predicting. But needless to say, he claims his model's claim to fame is calling Trump's victory over

Hillary in 2016, Joe Biden's win in 2020, an early call of Barack Obama's reelection in 2012 and others. His predictions rely on a model he developed that evaluates 13 true false statements regarding the political landscape, and it focuses on factors related to the incumbent's party for Harris to win. Lichtman notes that she can't lose more than seven or more keys in this election cycle. Lichtman has assessed that Kamala Harris has the no primary key, the no third party key, the strong short term economy key, the strong long term economy key, the major policy change key, the no social unrest key, the no scandal key and the uncharismatic challenger key. On the other hand, Trump has the midterm gains key, the incumbent seeking reelection key,

the charismatic incumbent key. Now, ultimately, there is debate as to whether Lichtman is, quote, correctly scoring some of these keys. Many of you have written to me and you said, I just I don't disagree with the model. I disagree with Lichtman's assessment. In his assessment, Trump was unable to take enough keys from the incumbent party in the White House, meaning Kamala Harris is going to win despite the unique circumstances of 2024, including Harris replacing Biden as the nominee, which is a major

event in politics. Lichtman maintains his model is reliable and he says it will be a consistent guide for this and future elections. We will see. We next can look at the betting odds. Many websites profess to tell you where the money is in terms of people betting. That's not who will you vote for? It's who do you predict will win? And today we're going to use predicted for an example. But there's many of these. The argument for the accuracy of betting odds is markets are a wise tool for determining election winners. And the people are taking into account who they expect to win rather than their desires. Predict it is a platform where you can buy and sell shares in potential outcomes, sort of like you. It's like a futures market of sorts. The prices can be interpreted as

probabilities. And right now you can interpret that the predicted polling markets, betting markets say Harris is seen as having a 54 percent chance of winning Trump, 49 percent chance of winning. If you believe Harris or Trump has a better chance than what what the market suggests, you can buy shares at the current price, which will raise their price. The total between the two numbers can go beyond 100 because predicted allows for multiple outcomes and probabilities to be represented. And the market is driven by the collective actions of traders. The idea being that they are regularly acting on all of the information. It's a dynamic

pricing system. It's better than polls. They would have you believe. Next, we have the prediction of Thomas Miller. Thomas Miller is a data scientist whose forecasting predictions include Biden's narrow win and the surprising victories in the Georgia Senate races, which flipped control the Democrats. Miller's approach focuses on using political betting markets, which he also believes provide a more scientific basis for prediction than traditional polling methods, because these markets reflect real time sentiments and expectations among a larger group of engaged betters. In the 2020 election, Miller had notable accuracy. He analyzed betting odds from predicted that let him track how odds fluctuated on a continuous basis

instead of individual polling snapshots. As of mid-September, Miller's model predicts a significant electoral victory for Harris, suggesting she might even get over 400 electoral votes, saying that such a drastic shift in betting odds since Kamala Harris replaced Joe Biden as the presumptive and eventual official Democratic nominee is such a major turnaround in voter sentiment that this could be a blowout. It seems overly optimistic. Kamala Harris winning out 400 electoral votes means she wins states like Texas and Florida. I don't see it.

But landslide or not, it is still another prediction that says Kamala will win. We then go to the primary model. The primary model assigns a 75 percent probability that Kamala Harris will defeat Trump in November. The methodology here looks at historical cases where sitting presidents withdrew, notably 52 and 68, 1952, 1968, uses their primary performances to predict outcomes for the Democratic nominees who replace them. And in both of those instances, it resulted in an accurate forecast. The model also considers historical election cycles that tend to favor incumbents versus out parties. And this further

supports the prediction of Harris with a projected electoral outcome of three hundred and fifteen electoral votes for Harris to twenty three for Trump. The the primary model uses a three step process. It estimates the popular vote, converts that to an Electoral College prediction and then runs simulations to assess the likelihood. The counterpoint here is this is a model based on only an N of two, two instances in the 20th century. And that may not be so good in terms of predictive value. So after looking at all of these different forecasting models, what can we conclude? Number one, they mostly show Kamala Harris winning. Maybe you thought one of the models seemed more accurate or had a more sound methodology than

another. You can take your pick, but it is better to look at all of this data as a whole. We can't predict future events, but we can make educated guesses. That's what the models are looking to do. They are not a guarantee. The models in 2016 heavily pointed to Hillary Clinton is going to win. It didn't happen. It will likely be a close election coming down to two hundred and fifty thousand votes in three to five states. And that means that all of these

indicators are based on very borderline scenarios. The election hasn't been decided. Most people have not yet voted early. The outcome won't be decided by researchers or models or pollsters or Nate Silver. It'll be decided by whether you vote and by whether I vote. I will be voting and whether others vote. So the takeaway is it's looking like Kamala Harris could win this and we could finally put Trump ism in the dustbin of history. But you've got to make sure you're registered. Vote dot org. You've got to make sure you know where to vote and when if you plan to vote early before

November 5th and on November 6th, hopefully maybe November 7th or 8th, we'll know which of these was ultimately the most accurate. Not all men's underwear is the same with traditional underwear. The sticking and the rubbing are something many of us know all too well. But our sponsor, Sheath Underwear, puts it to an end once and for all. Sheath Underwear is ultra light and breathable. You can barely tell it's there. But importantly, sheath is uniquely designed with two pouches in the front that separate everything out, giving you an extra confidence boost throughout the day. Air can flow in between, the David Pakman show at David Pakman dot com. that you've been missing out on. They come in a bunch of different designs. They have something for everybody. The quality is amazing, super long lasting, unlike the underwear you currently use, which you might have to replace every six months. Sheath is giving my audience 20 percent off with

the code Pacman. Go to Sheath Underwear dot com slash Pacman. That's S.H.E.A.T.H. Underwear dot com slash Pacman and use the code Pacman for 20 percent off. The link is in the podcast notes. With elections right around the corner and MAGA willing to do anything to secure his win, I can't recommend enough using ground news to stay up to date on debates and other issues that right wing outlets will try to skew or ignore. The David Pakman Show David Pakman dot com. In this story, the DNC is suing the Georgia Election Board over Republican supported rules that allow local election boards to question and withhold election certification, potentially causing chaos after Election Day. The summary of this story on Ground News is based on every article Ground News found reporting

on it. And with a simple scroll, you can see how different outlets across the political spectrum are framing the story. Voter suppression is real. And in this case, the perpetrators are elected officials who can be voted out, but only if the public understands the story from every angle. And that's where ground news comes in. Go to ground dot news slash Pacman for 40 percent off the vantage plan I use for unlimited

access to all their features. That's ground dot news slash Pacman. The link is in the podcast notes. Donald Trump sat down with pseudo financial guru and right wing dude Dave Ramsey. Now, I'm going to play a clip of this for you. I want you to for a moment listen more to how Trump is talking rather than the laughable answer that he gives about how to hire people. Trump goes, well, I hire my kids. So the content of the answer is nepotism, nepotism, nepotism, Trump slurring. And we were told, oh, in the Elon Musk interview, it was because of the cell phone audio processing through Twitter spaces and his

his diction is completely fine and crystal clear. Sounds like David Attenborough in reality, but the phone's making him sound weird. Trump is sitting in the room with Dave Ramsey. He's slurring. Dave Ramsey is not slurring. They're in the same room with the same mics. Something is going on with this guy's speech. And by the way, he says the way to have a good business is hire your kids out with talk about what it's like to work for Donald Trump. How do you hire leaders and put people in place to do that? Because I know you're obviously not there personally managing that, but you put a culture

in place in your organization and that applies to the administration as well, hiring people that are quality leaders. Well, my son, Eric, is very much involved, and he runs a lot of it. And Don helps out a lot. And Ivanka, to a lesser extent, you know, she's a... Are we going to blame a cell phone again, guys? Great mother and everything. She did a fantastic job in the administration. All she wanted to do is get people jobs. She'd go around and see Exxon and see Walmart. She wanted jobs for people. It's really pretty amazing.

She could have had a very glamorous job and she would have done well. But Eric's done a great job. And I did a similar type of job when I was doing it. Now I'm doing a thing called running for president. So I don't get. So are we again going to blame a cell phone? Do all audio devices make Trump sound like he's slurring but nobody else? I think I have the same mic these guys are using, although I can't completely tell.

But I think it is. I mean, I I hope that I've never sounded like that, except when I say, God bless the United Chase. Trump's still slurring badly later in the interview, announces he will take America back to the 1890s by putting a tariff on everything. It's crazy. And he won't stop slurring. A lot of people, oh, well, we don't want to have tariffs. The country was at the richest point in its history in the 1890s. It was all tariffs. If you looked at William McKinley as an example, he was a big tariff president.

They had committees that were put in charge of what to do with the money. We were taking in so much money. So three things. The slurring continues. The cuts suggest to me that this was chopped up to make Trump sound coherent. And number three, Trump's 20 percent tariff on everything plan is hugely inflationary, hugely inflationary and hilariously stay out of debt. Dave Ramsey is just sucking up to Trump, despite the fact that Trump added gobs of national debt and was

one of the worst presidents on the deficit that we've had in a long time. But Trump insists the tariffs will save the country, making it great again. I had that. I had the country going just prior to covid coming in at a level that nobody had ever seen. And even if you go all four years, it was so good that even with that terrible interruption that just destroyed the world, we had the greatest four years. The economy was so great. The job numbers were the best ever.

It's yeah, you could argue that Trump's mishandling of covid led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands or more people who could have otherwise otherwise survived a whacked out interview. But again, raising real questions. Why is Trump slurring during these interviews? He is embroiled in a battle between tongue, teeth and the roof of his mouth. And everybody's coming out a loser in that fight. It's not a fight that anybody is winning. The English language suffering a brutal defeat. And Dave Ramsey is so pathetic at this point. You know, he's first framing that Trump is braver than Kamala Harris because the Harris campaign has not accepted sitting down with him. He's an overt anti-vax right winger who loves Trump.

And it's not obvious why Kamala Harris would sit down with him. But then they go, oh, you know, she's not will. She's not willing. She's not able. She's scared. But here's Trump sitting down for what was supposed to be an hour. I think they ended up getting 30 minutes or something like that. Dave Ramsey conceded that they took nearly half of the time they had agreed to. These interviews are exercises in self-aggrandizement and throwing bouquets at each other. And what we learned is Trump's having some real speech issues, that's for sure. Speaking of speech issues, Corey Lewandowski, a Trump supporter, former aide staffer, who the hell knows what his role is at this point?

Corey Lewandowski was reduced to a sputtering mess when he was asked by Jim Acosta. All right, listen, J.D. Vance didn't answer. Did Trump lose in 2020? Will you answer, Corey? And Lewandowski should really be a circus performer based on the pretzel he's able to twist himself into here to avoid answering a very simple question. Did Trump lose in 2020? Let's listen. Let's get right into this. Last night, Senator Vance refused to answer whether Trump lost the 2020 election. Let's listen to that. I would just ask that. Did he lose the 2020 election? Tim, I'm focused on the future. Did Kamala Harris censor Americans from speaking

their mind in the wake of the 2020 COVID situation? That is a damning non-answer. Yeah, Corey, why is this so difficult for the Trump campaign to answer? I mean, it's 2024. Did Donald Trump lose the 2020 election? Can you answer that? Jim, I think it's very simple. The American people have passed the 2020 election. They're focused on an election which is just under five weeks away. And what we have we have an opportunity to do now is to talk about two different visions for America. And what J.D. Vance laid out last night is a very different vision than what Tim Walz and Kamala Harris want to say. So, look, we can go back and relitigate the 2020 election or we can look at what we can do to make America better for the everyday Americans who are struggling under Bidenomics. They're struggling. Yeah, it's not

relitigating. It's just it's just a simple question. Did Donald Trump lose the 2020 election? I mean, that's that's just Jim. Why are we talking about 2020 anymore? Does the American people care about the 2020 election anymore? Do they care about being able to put food on their table? One reason why it's coming up, Corey, is because the former president has said on the campaign trail repeatedly that there was all this widespread fraud in 2020. That was not the case. And he's also teeing up the same kinds of challenges after this election. It hasn't even happened yet. So it is a very, very, we know there was fraud. There's no question there was some fraud that took place in the 2020 election. There's no widespread fraud. No, what does widespread mean, Jim? Is is is one vote that's illegal enough or is how many do you determine is widespread?

What is that number? There are instances of voter fraud from Trump supporters. I mean, you know that from the 2020 campaign. But you're saying that there's no other side. I mean, I'm sure there was. But, Corey, I mean, every every expert, people from inside the Trump administration who. So you get it. He's not going to answer.

J.D. Vance won't answer. Corey Lewandowski won't answer. It's the simplest of questions. Who won the 2020 election? And they will not answer. At another moment, Jim Acosta, good for him, asked Corey Lewandowski, are you now ready to say Haitian migrants are not eating cats and dogs? He's not willing to acknowledge that either.

Last night, J.D. Vance said immigrants have, quote, destroyed Americans' lives in Springfield before having his mic cut. But all of this got started when Trump falsely claimed at last month's debate that Haitian migrants were eating pets. The governor of Ohio, the mayor of Springfield, have both come out and said this is not true. Corey, can you say that Haitian migrants are not eating pets in Springfield? Can you say that? You know what I can say, Jim? I can say that 13,099 murderers were let into this country. 16,000 rapists, 425,000 people in the last four years have been let into this country by

by Kamala Harris and Joe Biden's own Customs and Border Protection that are running around this country. The other thing, too, is Kamala Harris. I don's own customs and border protection that are running around this country. The other thing, too, is Kamala Harris. I don't know. Is there. All right. So he won't answer that. And then now Jim Acosta says to Corey Lewandowski, what every sane person has been wondering,

why can't he just say Kamala? Why does he keep saying Kamala? He must know how to pronounce her name. And after not answering whether Trump lost the 2020 election after not answering, can you just acknowledge that people aren't eating cats and dogs in Springfield, Ohio? Now he asked him, why can't you just pronounce Kamala's name correctly? Why do you guys say Kamala? That is it's Kamala Harris.

I just Jim, we know that they're committing crimes against Americans. Why? Why can't these individuals talk about the individuals who've been killed by illegal immigrants? Thirteen thousand ninety nine. He also he also won't order or answer why he's calling her Kamala. He won't answer anything. What's the point of interviewing Corey Lewandowski?

I don't know. You could say, well, it's ratings, David. Are the ratings even good? It doesn't really make sense to me. I think he goes back once more to the Kamala thing goes to show you the politics of the top of the administration, whether it's my orcas or it's Kamala or it's Joe Biden. You don't have additional resources. What is this?

Come on. It's Kamala Harris. Corey, you've been in this business a long time. I think you're a mature Come on. It's Kamala Harris. Corey, you've been in this business a long time. I think you're a mature grown up. It's Kamala Harris. Can you just say can you say Kamala or you cannot say Kamala? Jim, can you admit what's going on? Thousand ninety nine murders that come into the country.

You say, well, Corey, you know, I appreciate you coming on. Maybe we'll have you back. Thanks for your time. Yeah, maybe not. I like that. Maybe we'll have you back. I would say probably not. Folks, it's obvious what the Kamala thing is.

Listen, you all know. I know that her name is Tulsi Gabbard. I know that. OK, so when I say Tulsi, yes, I am showing that I have disdain for her. That's absolutely right. It's obviously not race based disdain. It's not ethnicity based. It's I think that she has become a tool of the MAGA right wing, despite professing that she was

the last real liberal when she tricked a bunch of people into thinking that that's what she was. And so I know her name is Tulsi. I'm calling her Tulsi. It is pejorative. I'm expressing my distaste. They know that it's Kamala. And when they're saying Kamala, it's to express their disdain and also to show and frame it as it sounds more foreign. It sounds less American. It sounds less white. This is not a Kamala.

It's like Barack Hussein Obama. It's the same thing. That's what they're doing. Corey Lewandowski is doing it. Jim Acosta points it out. They're going to keep doing it. She could be president for years and she probably will be the way things are looking, hopefully anyway.

And they'll be saying Kamala by the end. That's for sure. We have a voicemail number. That number is two one nine two. David P. We had a couple people. And I do mean a couple not pleased with what I wore, I guess, a couple of days ago. Listen to this. I did.

I'm a longtime fan. I've been watching since way back in the past days. Yeah. Back in 2008. And I am a left-leaning person. But on your October 2nd episode, you wore an outfit that made you look like some kind of fascist, Sith Lord,

Star Wars, evil empire guy. I don't get what you're doing with that style, you know, like it's just fucking weird. What is with that? Yeah. So it was yesterday, not not not Tuesday. I got one other email and the email, it was so presumptive and self-centered. Some guy wrote in and said, David, I wrote to you last year and told you not to wear any more turtlenecks and you wore a damn turtleneck again. Honestly, guys, who do you think you are? OK, my my clothes now are the focus. So if you don't

like the turtlenecks, it's getting cold. The turtlenecks are going to continue. If you don't like this, that or the other thing, we all know if I don't shower before filming, I've got bedhead. I have an asymmetrical thing that happens because I sleep on one side. It's going to keep happening. It's been happening for a while. It's going to be an asymmetric hairstyle. Let's focus on 30 days until who the hell knows what is going to happen to this country. OK, so the turtlenecks will continue until the morale improves. Let's leave it at that. We've got such a great bonus show for you today. I joked last week, maybe someone on the left will buy InfoWars and do something with it,

given that it's being auctioned off. There's a liberal watchdog group considering doing exactly that. We will analyze the impact of the twenty dollar fast food minimum wage in California, and we will talk about a skydiving instructor who has now been sentenced to prison time after twenty eight deaths took place at his skydiving school. What happened? What is going on? Is the punishment just don't miss the bonus show. Sign up at join Pacman dot com. I'll see you then. And I'll be back tomorrow.