The David Pakman Show - 7/24/24: Kamala polls +4 over Trump, JD Vance favorability in toilet

Episode Date: July 24, 2024

-- On the Show: -- George Conway, conservative attorney and leading Never-Trump Republican, launches Anti-Psychopath PAC, immediately funding anti-Trump billboards across the country, and joins David to discuss -- In a stunning new Reuters/IPSOS poll, Kamala Harris leads Donald Trump by 4 points in a three way race, the first time in months that Trump is losing in this poll -- Right-wingers obsess over Kamala Harris being a "DEI candidate," code for "she is not white" -- Kamala Harris refers to Donald Trump as a sexual predator at her first rally -- Kamala Harris goes straight for Project 2025 at a recent rally -- Donald Trump fantasizes about throwing migrant mothers with young children into camps during a Fox News interview as JD Vance looks on in horror -- JD Vance is the first vice presidential pick to have net negative favorability since 1980 -- Voicemail caller asks about the origins of the conspiracy theory that Joe Biden only pretended to have COVID, but didn't really have it -- On the Bonus Show: Elon Musk denies that he was ever donating $45 million per month to Trump, Andrew Yang says he will support Kamala Harris, study finds dogs can smell stress, much more... 🖥️ Malwarebytes: Get 50% OFF with code PAKMAN at https://malwarebytes.com/pakman 😁 Zippix Toothpicks: Code PAKMAN10 saves you 10% at https://zippixtoothpicks.com 🛌 Helix Sleep: Get up to 30% OFF + 2 free pillows at https://helixsleep.com/pakman 🌳 MyHeritage: Discover your family roots for FREE for 14 days at https://davidpakman.com/myheritage 💪 Get your copy of “Aim for the Uprights” at https://davidpakman.com/aim ⚠️ Try Ground News and get 40% OFF the Vantage plan at https://ground.news/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 Welcome, everybody. You may have heard that in a new three way Reuters Ipsos poll, Kamala Harris is leading Donald Trump by four points, an extraordinary, extraordinary polling result. Now, I'm not going to pretend that the average of polls has it as Kamala plus four. I'm not going to pretend that we have even close to all of the information we need to say that Kamala Harris is leading this race. It's extraordinarily early. But as far as data points go, this is a very interesting data point. It seems to have sent MAGA into a tailspin. It has focused Republican energy on Kamala's only there because she's not white.

They call it a DEI hire. We're going to get to that in a moment. But let's discuss the new polling data, what it tells us and what it doesn't tell us. So let's start with the headline. The headline that's been floating around is Harris leading by two. For example, Reuters reporting on its own Reuters Ipsos poll exclusive Harris leads Trump forty four to forty two in the US presidential race. Now that's true in head to head.

Kamala Harris leads by two. However, when you dove into the details of the poll, you find that when Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is included in a three way poll, she is actually leading by four, which is an even better result. Now, there are two ways in which this Reuters Ipsos Ipsos result is important. It's important, number one, because it already looks better for Kamala Harris than it did for Joe Biden. So the big question has been what happens if you replace Joe Biden at this relatively

late stage in the election, albeit still before he officially becomes the nominee at the DNC? We are starting to get an answer to that question. And it seems that the answer is it's fine as long as you pick the right person. Delegates have said we like what Kamala Harris said to us. We plan to support Kamala Harris. She's now the presumptive nominee. And so far, so far, the polling is pretty OK. That's number one. Number two is the question of at what point will news about the race settle to give us

a realistic picture? And here's what I mean by that. It's believed and, you know, all of these it's believed the conventional wisdom is you always have to take these things with a grain of salt, particularly as American politics evolves and as we have a completely unprecedented situation. But it is believed that in the week after your convention, you're going to have the best numbers, period. And we're in the week since Donald Trump had his convention and officially accepted the nomination. So part of this could be that the numbers right now are being modulated by Trump being at his peak and that he's going to collapse over the forthcoming month.

That's a possibility, not a guarantee. On the other hand, you have those saying this is Kamala's peak. This is Kamala's honeymoon. She just got the fanfare. She just got all of the donations. This is Kamala's peak. And the fact that she's still losing in an average of polls tells us that this is going nowhere. I think none of these analyses are particularly insightful, again, because we have an unprecedented situation. But one aspect of this is that the Reuters Ipsos poll specifically is one that Donald Trump has been leading in

every single time it's been done for more than a month. And as we see the Newsweek headline here, Donald Trump's losing election poll for first time in over a month. This is the first time in more than a month that in the Reuters Ipsos poll, Donald Trump has not been leading. Now, as I already said, we do want to look at an average of polling. And when you look at the average, the numbers are much more sober and what we have been seeing. So you may recall that after Joe Biden's poor debate

performance, Donald Trump's lead over Biden swelled like a pesky mosquito bite to three point three. It peaked at three point three and then it declined a little bit. Now, in an average of general election polling between Trump and Harris, bearing in mind that many of these polls were done when she was not the presumptive nominee. And I can't stress this enough. For example, if you look at the Emerson poll that has Trump leading Harris by six, this was from July seven and eight. Harris was not the nominee or the presumptive nominee at that point. It was a completely speculative. If it were to be Trump versus Harris, who would you support? Most of these polls, other than the most recent two, are pre Joe Biden saying, I'm stepping

aside, but let's accept that and still say, OK, but let's look at them anyway, understanding that that it may change. Trump's lead over Kamala Harris on average is one point six. So it is about half of what it was when it was still Trump versus Biden. That's a very good sign. And then in terms of the question of when will the polling averages reflect post Biden stepping aside polling? Well, Tom Bevin from Real Clear Politics says expect a clearer picture of Harris v. Trump by early next week, which seems completely reasonable. My guess is my guess is that it will be even closer to a

bullseye tie. Zero zero points separating the two candidates by Monday. That's simply my prediction. Also relevant to mention is that while Joe Biden announced that he's stepping aside via Twitter over the weekend and via a letter that he wrote, he previewed that he would be speaking to the nation sometime this week. That's going to be tonight at 8 p.m. Eastern, 5 p.m. Pacific. I will be live streaming on YouTube, Twitch and Facebook. And I invite you to join me. We will be taking super chats and hearing from people. What are your thoughts about what's going on?

We will hear from folks before Biden speaks tonight, formally saying I will not be seeking reelection. And we will also hear from from from people in the audience after Biden speaks. This is scheduled for 8 p.m. Eastern Time, 5 p.m. Pacific. So it should not be a late night. And I hope that you will join me. All right. Right wingers are really, really concerned that Kamala Harris is not white. And that's true. Kamala Harris, as far as I understand it, is half Jamaican, half Indian. There are some MAGA people that are furiously saying she is not actually a black woman because Jamaicans don't consider themselves black. Now, I'll be honest.

I don't know if that's true. When I worked at Circuit City, I had a Jamaican manager and he did not consider himself black in the sense of being African-American. He would sometimes not jokingly say, I'm not black. What do you mean? And it may be true that Jamaicans don't consider themselves black. I don't care. What is clear is that Kamala Harris is not a white woman that we can say for sure. What a conversation. And Republicans are using code to talk about that by saying that Kamala Harris is a D.I. higher, that she is a D.I.

candidate, et cetera. Now, this is just code for she's not a white woman. D.I. means diversity, equity and inclusion. It doesn't really have anything to do with Kamala Harris replacing Joe Biden as the Democratic nominee. But here are some examples of this. And you know, they tried going after how she laughs.

That hasn't been going really well. They tried going after the fact that she doesn't have biological children. That hasn't gone really well in the context of this right wing effort to repress women's bodily autonomy in a medical and reproductive context. So now they're going on to it's effectively affirmative action. She wouldn't be here if she were a white woman. Here is Larry Kudlow, former Trump economic adviser on Fox Business, making this argument. And of course, her whole history is D.I.

Diversity, exclusion and equity. I mean, OK, I don't I don't know if he's deliberately messing up what D.I. means there, but he seems confused. Let's continue. Exclusion and equity. I mean, inclusion and equity. I mean, what does that tell you? It's totally woke as anti-cops, among all the other things, putting the economics aside. More DEI, defund the police, eliminate ICE, never even talk to the chiefs of the Border Patrol. I mean, really, how's she going to stand up to that?

Now one of the things I love about this is this reminds me of the Biden's a communist and I hate him for it. Biden's not a communist and I hate him for it. Simultaneously, you had Republicans arguing Biden is a socialist or a communist or a Marxist. They don't really know the difference. They don't really care. They don't care to find out. But we don't like him from the right because he's a communist and he has unleashed holy hell communism upon the United States. On the other hand, you had far leftists saying, I can't stand that Biden's not a communist. I can't stand that Biden's not a socialist. I'm a socialist, some of these leftists

said. And Biden is too much of a capitalist for me. Similarly, similarly, you have right wingers like Larry Kudlow saying Kamala Harris is anti police. She's going to defund the police. It's going to be absolutely terrible. Whereas you have some on the left who say we don't like Kamala because she's too pro police and too pro war on drugs based on her record. What 12, 15 years ago as a prosecutor and attorney general of California. So simultaneously, we hate Kamala because she's against the police and we hate Kamala because she's too much in

favor of the police. But what they can agree upon, at least as far as the right wing is concerned, is she's not a white woman. And that means that she, by definition, must be an affirmative action hire. Here is Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick channeling B. Arthur, who says that Kamala Harris would be the queen of D.I. So she would be the queen of D.I. If she were elected, she is D.I.. There you go. Kamala Harris is the embodiment of D.I.

And then Dan Patrick also saying he simply can't imagine Kamala Harris involved in any kind of negotiation. You imagine her negotiating with any of the tough world leaders, as Donald Trump calls them, because they are, you know, the guy I can't imagine negotiating with the tough world leaders is Donald Trump because he's smitten by them. How is Trump going to negotiate with Xi or Duterte or Orban or Putin or Kim Jong Un or whoever when he's in love with them? He's enamored with them. He's so impressed with them. Now, what I can tell you is, unlike everybody else who's been a Democratic or Republican presidential nominee, I sat with Kamala Harris a few months ago and I chatted with her for over an hour in a small group setting. And what I can tell you is that I can very much imagine her sitting and negotiating with tough world leaders. She's not going to be impressed with them. She's not going to be smitten with them. She's not going

to be in love with them the way that Donald Trump has shown himself to be. I'd be quite confident of her in that situation. Now, here is a Republican congressman, Tim Burchett, who also says Kamala is DEI. Biden said, first off, he said he's going to hire a black female for vice president and that not just skipped over. What about what about white females? What about any other group? It just when you go down that route, you you take mediocrity. And that's what they have right now as a vice president. He's suggesting she's she was a D.I.

hire. One hundred percent. She was a D.I. hire. One hundred percent, he says. She is absolutely a D.I. higher. And then we also heard from Republican Congresswoman Harriet Hageman, a vile and repulsive individual who says that intellectually, not only is she D.I., but Kamala Harris is the bottom

of the barrel. I think she's one of the weakest candidates I've ever seen in the history of our country. Have you met Sarah Palin? I mean, intellectually, just really kind of the bottom of the barrel. And from the standpoint of just who she is and the policies, the positions that she's taken, her failure to do anything in terms of the border, that sort of thing. I think it's just a failure from top to bottom. I think she was a DEI hire. And I think that that's what we're seeing. There you go. She is a DEI hire. And finally, finally, Jesse Waters with the same sort of

thing. The only reason Kamala is in the White House is because of the DEI deal Biden cut with Bernie to seal the nomination. So this is all code for Kamala Harris wouldn't be here if she were white. Implicit in that is, of course, that Donald Trump must be qualified while Kamala Harris clearly is not. They also usually mispronounce Kamala Harris's name. And at this point, I don't know if that's on purpose or if they simply don't if if they are so bottom of the barrel to quote Harriet Hageman that they just can't figure out how to pronounce her name. So this is going to be a theme. The themes so far are she laughs funny. She doesn't have biological children. And if she were white, she wouldn't be here. Will this work to defeat Kamala Harris in November? That's the question. Let me know your thoughts. Info at

David Pakman dot com. We all know someone who's been the victim of identity theft or accidentally downloading a virus and it costs time, money, maybe your personal files. And what I've used for years to keep my devices safe from malware is malware bites. I've been using this for years and years before they ever became a sponsor. And it's because malware bites is just the standard. It gets great scores from the independent cybersecurity labs. It's almost always the top choice from consumer tech publications. CNET, for example, just declared malwarewarebytes the best malware removal service of 2024. Malwarebytes expertise and dedication to cybersecurity excellence just

sets them apart from the other antivirus companies. They catch all kinds of threats that antiviruses often don't. You get comprehensive real time protection against a huge variety of online threats, and it will detect and remove existing malware already on your devices as well. And now you can get the identity theft protection bundle to protect your entire family's personal information with live monitoring alerts, recovery assistance and up to a million dollars in identity theft insurance. Malware Bytes has a special deal only for The David Pakman Show. You can get any Malware Bytes has a special deal only for the David Pakman show. You can get any Malware Bytes subscription for 50 percent off. That's half off

at Malware Bytes dot com slash Pakman. That's Malware B Y T E S dot com slash Pakman to get half off your subscription. The link is in the podcast notes. trays, the thing in your lip that people can see. I've seen that around. This is an easier and less messy way to curb the cravings. And you can use Zypix just about anywhere. Zypix is available in six flavors with two or three milligrams strength. The nicotine and the flavor are long lasting and Zypix has helped countless people kick the bad habits and they are bad habits. Zypex toothpicks are FDA registered. Their customer service is second to none. It is one of the most cost effective alternatives. Also check out their B12 and caffeine toothpicks. See for yourself why so many people have switched to ZipX toothpicks.

You can only get ZipX online. Go to ZipX toothpicks dot com today. Save 10 percent with the code Pacman 10 at checkout. Just remember, you must be 21 or older to order. That's ZIPPIX toothpicks dot com. Use promo code Pacman 10 at checkout for 10 percent off. That's Pacman 1 0. The info is in the podcast notes. The David Pakman show, of course, is funded directly by our audience. If you are hearing this message right now, you're not getting the full experience, which includes the daily show commercial free in audio or video form, whichever you prefer, as well as the daily bonus show access to the show hours before it's made public.

And of course, the soundboard very similar to the soundboard I have here. Oh, the bonus show where you want to make money. Yeah, everybody else that makes money to fund themselves is bad. Let's do one more just for kicks. Speaker 4 David Pakman does not have a soul. He doesn't have a soul. Speaker 1 That's, of course, our good friend Candace Owens. You can sign up at join Pakman dot com. And I really do appreciate. Let me see. What's the number here? Two hundred 15 new members in the last you see here. In the last six days, so very, very much appreciate that.

Join Pacman dot com, the place to sign up. Kamala Harris is doing two critical and important things early in her campaign speeches. And we're going to look at two different speeches. Number one, Kamala Harris is directly going at Donald Trump as a sexual predator, framing herself as the one that prosecutes sexual predators and framing Trump as the perpetrator, also as a criminal, which he is a convicted felon, etc. I think that that's really good. Secondly, and just as importantly, but for a different audience that might react to this,

Kamala Harris is going straight at Project 2025, what it is. And as we have seen this and as we have seen it become more of a discussion topic, the number of Americans aware of Project 2025 and the percentage of Americans that oppose it has gone up. So let's take each of these two things in turn. First and foremost, here is a speech from Kamala Harris earlier this week, and I believe that this is the sort of messaging you need to defeat Donald Trump. You have to be direct about what Trump is and represents. You have to make it clear that, listen, we respect and welcome every voter.

But if you're going to vote for Trump, you have to contend with the reality that you're voting for a criminal. You're voting for a con artist, a scammer, a sexual predator. Let's listen to a couple of minutes of Kamala Harris's speech from earlier this week. I think this is very good. And when we talk about more of a Newsome type tone and attitude, which we had not previously seen from Kamala Harris, this isn't fully there yet, but it's certainly going in that direction.

Let's listen for I was elected as vice president before I was elected as United States senator. I was the elected attorney general, as I've mentioned, of California. Before that, I was a courtroom prosecutor in those roles. I took on perpetrators of all kinds. The audience understands exactly what she's getting at, which to me is a sign that this sort of messaging is good. Predators who abused women. Right. Fraudsters who ripped off consumers.

Cheaters who broke the rules for their own gain. So hear me when I say, I know Donald Trump's type. And in this campaign, I will proudly, I will proudly put my record against his. As a young prosecutor, when I was in the Alameda County District Attorney's Office in California, I specialized in cases involving sexual abuse. Donald Trump was found liable by a jury for committing sexual abuse. Donald Trump was found liable by a jury for committing sexual abuse. Yes.

As Attorney General of California, I took on one of our country's largest for-profit colleges and put it out of business. Donald Trump ran a for-profit college, Trump University, that was forced to pay $25 million to the students it scammed. As district attorney to go after polluters, I created one of the first environmental justice units in our nation. Donald Trump stood in Mar-a-Lago and told big oil lobbyists he would do their bidding for a

one billion dollar campaign contribution. Right. So what is good about this? There's a couple of different things. First of all, she's speaking directly to the contrast between the sort of thing you would expect if you get more Trump and the sort of thing you would expect if it's Kamala Harris, who is the next president. That's number one.

Number two, all of these issues can be motivating to voters in a way that maybe Project 2025 wouldn't be. So it's a very astute thing to go directly at these issues. And then number three, we know that if there are debates, if there are debates, she is going she being Kamala Harris is going to have to come in prepared with how do you deal with the fact that Trump will not answer any question, will try to talk over and we'll just lie. Is it to go at Project 2025? Is it to go at Trump's criminal convictions? Is it to go after Trump's scam businesses? Is it to go after Trump's sexual assault? We don't know. But the whole point

here is you want to start building up a picture of how crowds and audiences are going to react to that. So I think this was excellent, excellent, excellent for Kamala Harris. And simultaneously in a sort of something for everyone kind of situation, she also went right after Project 2025 in another rally. And I want to talk about that now. So what a very explosive and high energy rally held yesterday in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Vice President Kamala Harris now on the campaign trail in earnest for herself, seeking the Democratic nomination and ultimately to defeat Donald Trump in November. She went directly at Project 2025.

I'm going to play a couple of minutes of this from you for you, and then we're going to look at new polling about Project 2025, which has been growing in terms of awareness in the minds of Americans, which I think is a very good thing. We talked already about Kamala Harris going after Trump as an individual, the sexual assault, the criminality, et cetera. Now we are going to look at Project 2025. I don't think President Biden did nearly enough of this. Kamala Harris is doing it and it does seem to be working. But Donald Trump wants to take our country backward. He and his extreme project 2025 agenda will weaken the middle class. Like we know we got to take this seriously. Can you believe they put that thing in writing? Read it as nine hundred pages.

But here's the thing you when you read it, you will see Donald Trump intends to cut Social Security and Medicare. He intends to give tax breaks to billionaires and big corporations and make working families foot the bill. That's almost Bernie type language right there. They intend to end the Affordable Care Act and take us back then to a time when insurance companies had the power to deny people with preexisting conditions. Remember what that was like? Children with asthma, women who survived

breast cancer, grandparents with diabetes. America has tried these failed economic policies before, but we are not going back. We are not going back. This was a very solid speech. Yes, there's theatrics. Yes, there's a performative aspect. Yes, she's not writing the speeches herself in the way that every high level politician has people who write the speeches. But the direct attack on Project 2025 is excellent. And one of the things we are seeing is that as people learn more about Project 2025, they are more alarmed and like it less and less. There is a common dreams report. U.S. public rapidly sours on Project 2025 as awareness grows, as awareness grows. Navigator Research found about two weeks ago that 54 percent of

Americans were familiar with Project 2025. That is an increase of 25 percentage points from just one month before. Only 11 percent of people view the agenda favorably. Forty three percent have an unfavorable view. That is a 24 point increase since June. There are two really optimistic signs there. Number one, the percentage of the country that has become familiar with Project 2025 is way up. Number two, the percentage of the country that is against Project 2025 is also way up. So we need it's very clear that that's a good and important story to be telling.

I will mention that I wrote a 12 page white paper summarizing the worst of Project 2025 and what must be done to stop it. You can go to David Pakman dot com slash Project 2025, download it for free, send it to anybody you want. Something like 70,000 people have downloaded this thing so far, which is incredible. Really nice job in just the first few days of this campaign by Vice President Harris. That doesn't win you the election, but that combined with just extraordinary fundraising numbers, certainly a very good start. If you've been thinking about getting a new mattress, Helix Sleep is where I would start.

I've been sleeping on Helix mattresses for years now. I recommend Helix to everyone, which is why I wanted them as a sponsor. If you don't want to take my word for it, Helix has been awarded number one mattress by both GQ and Wired magazine. And one of the things that makes Helix unique is their sleep quiz. I didn't really know what kind of mattress would be best for me. But you do this short sleep quiz. You answer questions about your body type and your preferences, what position you like to sleep in. And Helix will match you with the perfect mattress for you. So, you know,

you're actually getting something tailored to your needs instead of going in blind like most people do. I got my Helix mattress designed to stay cool at night since I hate getting hot while I sleep. Shipping is always free. You get 100 nights to decide whether you like it right now I've been tracking my family tree for a long time now, and the service I've always relied on is my heritage, which I started using long before they became a sponsor trusted by over 90 million users. My heritage makes it easy and fun to build your family tree with a range of powerful genealogy tools at your fingertips. One of my favorite features lets you quickly find and found a scan of an immigration document from when my mother's uncle's aunt arrived at Ellis Island or this document from the U.S. Canada border for my relative who was born in 1895. This is remarkable stuff and really interesting artifacts that are part of the puzzle of my family's past.

My heritage gives you access to over 19 billion records like this, making it easier than ever for you to uncover amazing new pieces of your family's history. You can try my heritage completely free for 14 days when you go to David Pakman dot com slash my heritage. The link is in the description. Today, we're going to be speaking with George Conway, lawyer, activist, co-host of the Bulwarks. George Conway explains it all and also director of the new political action committee, the Anti Psychopath PAC, which aims to highlight the existential threat that Donald Trump poses to the US. George, it's really great to have you on.

You know, my audience, I'm sure, has been aware of you for for a while. Politically, you are now an independent. You are a lifelong Republican. Are you still a conservative guy when it comes to abortion and taxes and foreign policy? Well, let me I mean, it's hard, you know, these labels of conservative and liberal are, you know, are getting very mushy these days. And I think that it doesn't capture all the nuance. On conservatism are actually sensible on foreign policy are the Democrats. I believe in strong national defense. I believe in our strong alliances. And the people who are running the Republican Party, the two nominees, basically support Russia's national interest and not ours. So I don't think my views on foreign policy have changed. I think there, you know, over the last 25 years, I think there is a consensus that has evolved that's relatively stable between that it is a bipartisan consensus that I think as much captures the conservatism of my youth, the Reaganism of my youth, than it does the anti-war nature of the 60s or the anti-Americanism of the modern right.

So, I mean, that's a complex answer for that one. On economics, yeah, I think generally speaking, not in every single case, less government is better than more because you don't want too powerful a government because you may not like the next government, CEG Project 2025. I think people expect too much from government. I think they expect it to solve all their problems. I think they expect it to solve all their problems. I think they expect it to solve all the things they perceive at any given moment to be social ills. And I think that was sort of a disease of liberalism in the 60s and 70s when I came of political age. And now it's a horrible metastasis in the right where they basically think they can legislate everything that they don't like in other people out of existence.

And I'm not that kind of, you know, that's not conservatism to me. Now, in terms of abortion, I have a view that makes everybody unhappy. OK, I'm a conservative. I'm a judicial conservative in the sense that basically I think that the Constitution should be interpreted in accordance with its terms. It's a written document. Now, I don't believe in some kind of mechanistic, infallible originalism that would say that, oh, well, let's see, in order to figure out whether this particular gun regulation is constitutional under the Second Amendment, we have to look very specifically at the statutes that were passed in Maryland in 1645. I don't believe in that. I do think that you do have to have some tie into the meaning, the original meaning of language, that it has the historical context, and that if you depart from that and you start deciding, hey, well, you know, I have five votes for this, I have five votes for that, and liberals have done this, and conservatives have done this. I don't think that's how you do

it. You have to actually ground your interpretation of the Constitution in the text and its structure. And, you know, there are liberals who actually agree with me on this, Akilah Moore of Yale Law School. And I think to some extent, you know, Justice Kagan has become a very good originalist in certain ways. It may be that we come out with different answers on a particular case, but the fact of the matter is if we're using the same kind of framework to look at the Constitution, we are at least speaking the same language and we can work together to try to get the right answer, even if we disagree. Now, in terms of the substance of abortion, I thought Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided because of the very reasons that I thought. On the other hand, I don't think you can overrule a precedent that impacts so many people after 50 years. The time to overrule that was in 1989. If I were a legislature, a legislator, I would probably vote for something somewhere in between what Western Europe, the Western Europeans have as a regime, which is basically, you know, early term abortions are prohibited or highly restricted, although there are many exceptions. And then somewhere between that and Roe v. Wade, which is basically was pretty much the first two trimesters.

I mean, how I draw that exact line, I'd want to think about it and discuss it with experts. And, you know, it's something that should have been, I think, a subject of public and legislative debate in the 70s when the reform movement, abortion reform movement, was actually having some great successes. As Justice Ginsburg points out in an article in 1990, where she basically said that Roe went too far because it basically eliminated public discussion. People didn't have to think about the issue and they started taking sides mindlessly. I mean, abortion, it's, I'm not going to say it's complex because everybody gets real hung up, but it's fraught. It's hard. It's hard because at some

point you do have a human life late and the question is when, but at the same time, you're always affecting women's autonomy and health. This is not a black and white issue and it's something that we need to think about and weigh and discuss rationally. It was something that judges couldn't really do from sitting from afar and trying to craft. They essentially wrote a statute, which is why they got into trouble. And it's why, you know, I think we just if we had just sort of proceeded the way I think Justice Ginsburg wrote, we should have basically is like maybe they maybe the Supreme court should have struck down the Texas law without providing for, without explaining like, you know, but creating a statutory framework that resolves every case, which is what the Supreme court, by the way, did in the immunity case where they try to basically resolve everything in the future.

And they, yeah. Um, so that's my, you know, I have a very nuanced perspective on some of this. That's a good framework. It's enough to piss off everybody. So that's so. So I'm homeless. I'm in that in that context. The part that hasn't changed over the last few years is that you think Trump is bad news and he shouldn't go anywhere near the Oval Office. You've launched the anti psychopath pack.

You're doing ad buys that include billboards essentially pointing out this guy is a pathological liar. He's a malignant narcissist. He's completely unfit. First question. Do you think that Joe Biden stepping aside makes the case against Trump clearer or does it muddle it? I think it makes it makes it clear because I think one of the things that the Trump people love to do is that when they are accused of X and are guilty of X, they like to accuse the

other side of X. OK, now here, I mean, you know that that's like the Biden crime family. Right. I mean, all the BS about Hunter's laptop, the, you know, crazy Nancy, it's all projection on their part. But now, you know, I mean, and they were getting away, let's leave it apart, the malignant narcissism that we're probably going to be talking about, even on the on the simple question of whether or not there was age related cognitive decline in either of the candidates, there was a double standard being applied. I mean, Joe Biden, okay, so right, okay, he's old, we get that. He probably needs more sleep than he used to. He probably, you know, he's clearly got these spinal or back issues that make him look like he shuffles, he forgets, you know, I forget names, I forget names myself. I'm 60. And I sometimes misstate words. We all do that. But Donald Trump does it as much, if not more, than Joe Biden. And somehow we just did not hear a lot about that. We didn't have the press feeding frenzy that we had for Joe Biden because of the fact that everybody's so used to Donald Trump doing it. Now that he's out of the

race, now that Biden is out of the race, there's no one else to focus on about Trump. And we have to, we can have to, we should appreciate and thank the Republicans and Donald Trump for raising mental health, mental capacity, mental acuity as an issue. Because the only person whose mental acuity can be called into question now who's running a major party candidate for president is Donald Trump. And so, yeah, absolutely. I think it brings singular clarity to what the problem is. And I think it's going to basically clear the way for making these points that I think

have not sufficiently been made by people over the years about Donald Trump. Yeah, I sort of jokingly on Sunday tweeted something like, is this does America really need the oldest presidential nominee in history at this point or something like that? It was a complete joke. But yesterday, Dana Perino on Fox News seemed furious about the fact that now there are people talking about Trump's age and being the oldest nominee. It sort of does seem to have struck a nerve in it. It seems like they do actually see it as a potential liability in this race. It is.

I mean, basically now the emperor had no clothes to start with, but now he's standing out there naked by himself and it's not a pretty sight. And that's what we're going to be seeing more of him. It also dovetails with something else that has worked to Trump's advantage over the last four years, since basically January 6th, 2021. He was deplatformed on Twitter. He was deplatformed off of Facebook and all these other places. And after he went back to Mar-a-Lago with his stolen documents, we didn't hear much from him. We didn't see as much from him. And that's been to his advantage. Even the trial that was held

in Manhattan, where he was convicted on 34 counts, helped him because it took him off. We didn't see him talking. A lot of people didn't see. I mean, we did. You and I did, I'm sure. But a lot of people didn't see him talking about sharks and electrocution and Hannibal Lecter, and now you know, this it was great for his narcissistic ego to be awesome and all that. He loved that. And those those press briefings killed him to the point where his aides begged him to stop, you know, especially after he decided that Clorox would be a great treatment for COVID. So, you know, Biden's departure from the race, the fact that people are now starting to engage in the race, and the fact that he's got this spotlight to himself, and the fact that he is a narcissist who wants to have the spotlight on him, even though whoever the spotlight is on is going to lose this election as he did in 2020 and as Hillary did in 2016. Whoever this election becomes about is going to lose.

But he wants it to be about him because he wants everything to be about him. So all of these factors together, I think just serendipitously or otherwise, it makes it a really ripe moment to talk about Donald Trump's mental capacity and his and his mental health issues. So you're you're doing the billboards. These are not cheap billboards. What's the strategy around location? Well, look, I mean, obviously, we're going to do something.

We have let's this is a multifaceted pack. We have multiple audiences and you know maybe political consultants real political consultants of which i'm not i'm just a lawyer um may think that well you can't really do what all those things but here's here here are the objects one is we want to explain to the public what these conditions are the malignant narcissism or how you would anti-social personality disorder narcissist personality disorder um malignant narcissism or how you would, antisocial personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, malignant narcissism, all these concepts which overlap. We want to explain to them what these are and how they apply to Trump.

Secondly, is we want to explain why they're dangerous in a political leader such, and in particular, Trump. The third is we want to shame and embarrass the press and nudge the press into finally talking about this, because I think the reason the reason why Trump one of the reasons why an important reason why Trump has been so normalized and why there was this double standard between Trump and Biden is because we don't talk about these mental health issues as they affect Donald Trump, because we're, for a lot of different reasons, we're afraid it's, it's, it's, people get squeamish when

they talk about mental health and it's just not, it's just journalists don't feel like they're experts in it. And, and, and, and you've got the Goldwater rule. So there are a bunch of different reasons going on here, why, why it hasn't happened and needs to happen. And one of the effects of it not happening, of the press not talking about him in pathological terms, is people don't understand how it is that Trump presents such a danger. The press normalizes Trump when, in fact, his psychological condition

explains his racism, his misogyny, his authoritarianism, his criminality. Everything about him comes down to his psychological position. And finally, the fourth object of the PAC is really to demonstrate in kind of a lab experiment kind of way, Trump as a malignant narcissist and as an unwell human being. He's going to be saying things from now until November that will illustrate his narcissistic sociopathy. He always has. He's done it in the past. I mean, you could just do it on January 6th alone, but he will continue to do that.

And then, you know, we are going to get under his skin, frankly. And he will, you know, one of the things that you can point to about characteristics of narcissistic sociopaths is that they don't take criticism. They do not. They do not. So we're going to, those are the four objects and we're going to do a mix of things. And we're going to, you know, we're going to have, we're going to have a lot of pitches in, in, in, in, in, in, in our portfolio or whatever you call it in our repertoire. That's what you call it, which is and we're going to throw them at different times in different ways. And I think it's going to be interesting.

George, in the limited time we have left, what do you think about the early lines of attack against Kamala Harris, which in order chronologically over the last four days have been she cackles when she laughs. She doesn't have biological children and she's the DEI candidate. Do you think if you were advising them what how would you evaluate these lines of attack or how might you attack her? Advising which of them? Trump. Trump. I'd say keep doing that. That's really great. Nice. If you actually wanted to help them, I guess is what I mean. Also talk about, also talk about, you know, her, her love life when she was in her twenties. Absolutely. All of that. That's a great job. You guys are stable geniuses. That's my, that's my, no, but I mean, you know, it's,

it's ridiculous. None of it, none of it's all nonsense. I mean, the fact of the matter is, yeah, she cackles because she has a sense of humor. She's actually funny. Okay. She has a real sense of humor. Donald Trump does not have a sense of humor. He thinks he doesn't know you ever, ever see him actually laugh. He doesn't actually understand humor. I don't know that he understands jokes, right? He can't understand jokes. And I think that's, to me, it relates to his sociopathy. In order to be able to understand jokes, you have to understand irony and you have to understand how people, other people, people's a laugh, but he doesn't really understand what it is that causes the laugh. The only thing he the only thing he thinks really humor is, is mocking other people. He thinks that he confuses mockery with with with with with humor. It doesn't, you know, it's not, you know, denigrating people isn't really all that funny if there's no subtlety to it or no angle to it and no irony to it. So he doesn't really

have a sense of humor. And Kamala Harris does. She's fun. She's going to be fun. And, you know, there's going to be the voter registration of young people apparently just went through the roof over the last few days. I think, you know, I think America is ready for. I like I like the fact that people are saying she's young because I'm 60. She's 58. It's great. Another reason. So I think I think, you know, I think she's going to have that advantage.

I think also the DEI stuff. Well, I tweeted something out today through the pack that said, yeah, yeah, no, no. The real DEI candidate here is is Donald Trump because he's deranged. He's egomaniacal and he's incompetent. That's the candidate that he's the real DEI candidate in this election. So I hope maybe, you know, maybe, maybe, maybe the campaign will take that on. I kind of like that slogan. Maybe they will. And we will be following the anti psychopath pack. You can also find George Conway as co-host of the Bulwarks. George Conway explains it all.

Really appreciate your time today. Thanks. Thanks for having me, David. One of today's sponsors is a book called Aim for the Uprights by Stu Crumb, a former professional football player, now entrepreneur and successful business leader, including being former president of Bridgestone Tire and Jiffy Lube. He calls his new book Aim for the Uprights a playbook for achieving your professional and personal aspirations through intentional living.

I've been talking a lot about intentionality lately. If you've tried getting up extra early, following the right personal finance practices, and yet you're still working marathon hours, depriving your family of your time day to day, missing vacations. This could be a great book for you. Aim for the Uprights proves that you can regain control of your time and career through simple choices and consistency and a zeal for trusting that small steps will get you there. It's really an instructional playbook for men and women

looking to balance their lives, written by a C-suite executive with some unique insights about how to make more time for your family, friends and what's important without sacrificing your career. It's a book that speaks to the reader rather than just throwing a bunch of stuff at the reader. Pick up your copy of Stu Crum's Aim for the Upright today at David Pakman dot com slash aim. The link is in the description. Right now, we are seeing candidates do whatever it takes to win your vote and how the media chooses to cover certain stories, if at all, can completely shape your perspective of those candidates. But our sponsor, Ground News, is an awesome resource at a time like this with their vantage plan. I get access to what's called their blind spot feed that shows me stories that can be easily missed. For instance, I'm looking

here at Ground News, a summary about Trump distancing himself from Project 2025 amid its rising controversy, something we've been talking about. Ground News provides a great summary of the situation based on over 100 articles that Ground News found reporting on it. And Ground News shows me that almost no conservative news outlets are covering the story. Not a surprise. Ground News shows us that the right wing outlets only report on how Trump is denying involvement with the project, while the center and left outlets are actually giving context on Trump's connections to the movement of Project 2025. Every story comes with this visual breakdown of the political biases and ownership of the reporting news outlets, which is really important to know as well. Go to ground dot news slash Pacman or scan my QR code for 40 percent off

the same unlimited access vantage plan that I use. We were treated to part two of the Jesse Waters Fox News interview with Donald Trump and his new regretful running mate, J.D. Vance, also known to many as J.P. Mandel. We've endorsed J.P., right? J.D. Mandel, J.D. Mandel, J.P. Mandel. Who the hell knows his name? He's a Trump doormat. And that's what Trump likes, although reports are of growing discontent within MAGA world of the selection of J.D. Vance. We'll get to that later. Here is a part of this really weird interview with Jesse Waters where Trump starts fantasizing about throwing mothers with beautiful children into these mass detention camps, which is outlined in Project 2025.

And if you look at J.D. Vance, he seems physically uncomfortable by this line from Trump. Now, I'm not even going to tell you that J.D. Vance is necessarily opposed to this. J.D. Vance may be fine with this, but what J.D. This is me projecting my analysis. What J.D. Vance is recognizing in this clip is that the way Trump is talking about this is very much not helpful, given everything we've seen happen with Roe v. Wade, women's rights, bodily autonomy. This is the last thing that Republicans need in order to win.

Maybe J.D. Vance likes it personally. And you can tell he's almost physically in pain as Trump says this stuff. And as soon as we grab, perhaps we take a woman with two children, three children. She shouldn't be here, but she's a nice woman. The children are beautiful. And all of a sudden it ends up being a front page story of the liberal newspapers. And you're right. It's some it's a hard thing to do. Harder than a long time ago with Dwight Eisenhower. Right. A lot harder. Nobody complained in those days. It was, you know, we had a country that was much different. Oh, yeah. Yeah. So J.D. Vance, I mean, just look at look at the expression on his face, a sort of kind of a what the hell am I doing situation? We are going to have to clean this up. And again, it's not that J.D. necessarily disagrees. I think he probably likes a bunch of this stuff, but he's recognizing that the way Trump is talking about it is not going to serve their cause well in this environment. And it's probably not going to serve their cause particularly well running against Kamala

Harris either. Now, let's look at one more clip. I actually am unsure whether I have the right clip here. Let's explore it together. This may be overlapping with the clip we just played. Right. It's some it's a hard thing to do harder than a long time ago with Dwight Eisenhower. Right.

A lot harder. Nobody complained in those days. It was, you know, we are a country that was much different. So it's it mostly is overlap. But Trump, of course, referring to the military, military style operation, Operation Wetback and a vile, vile element in American history. Trump says, hey, listen, nobody complained. But now because of the liberal media, people are probably going to complain when we throw

mothers with beautiful children into detention camps. And J.D. Vance is like, oh, boy, this is not seeming very good. They will have to contend with this as a campaign issue for sure. Trump on the environment talking about, well, I won't even introduce it because I don't understand it, but he doesn't like wind power. That remains the case. You know this.

Do you know we need twice as much electricity as we currently have in our country for a but the environmentalists won't let you produce it. They want wind. The wind is blazing, blowing today. The whole thing is the most expensive hoax in the world. The wind, it kills our birds. And of course, there is J.D. Vance's new uncomfortable forced laughter. We've kind of been wondering what is going to be the M.O. for J.D. when he has to sit next to Trump and listen to Trump say these absurd things. And we've very quickly learned from part one and part two of this Jesse Waters interview that what J.D. Vance is going to do is just kind of force a chuckle that is both completely insincere and more a sign of nervousness than it is of of comedy. So I hope that they can continue doing these interviews together.

There's a couple of things that are going on when J.D. Vance does the solo interview. And by the way, J.D. Vance's favorability is completely in the toilet. We'll talk about that in a moment when Vance does the side by side interview with Trump, which we've been treated to here over the last couple of days. The problem is he's visibly uncomfortable by the idiotic things that Trump says. And so he has to kind of do these forced laughs and it doesn't come off very well. On the other hand, when J.D. Vance does interviews by himself or he's appeared at rallies by himself already. He so totally lacks charisma and any even iota of genuineness that that seems to hurt him as well.

So quite frankly, I don't know what the solution is to the J.D. Vance problem. I don't care what it is. I hope they don't find one. This is their mistake. And now they're going to have to live with it to the extent that it's completely backfiring. Let's now get to the evidence that the J.D. Vance selection is indeed backfiring. If you go back 44 years to 1980, J.D. Vance, you know, the guy we've endorsed J.P. right. J.D. Mandel, that guy, he is the first vice presidential running mate with net negative

favorability. You've got to go back to 1980. J.D. Vance wasn't even alive at the time. So the starting point here for me with Vance was, all right, let's evaluate this election. Does Vance bring new voters to Trump? Does he expand the electorate for Trump in any way? Doesn't seem like it at all. Doesn't seem like you listen.

Trump's going to win Ohio. Almost certainly Ohio's not really been in play for Democrats for a while now. So maybe he makes Trump win by a slightly larger margin in Ohio. And that's a maybe. But Vance doesn't help Trump in Arizona. Vance doesn't help help Trump in North Carolina to the extent that maybe you could pull that off. So the point here is it doesn't seem Vance brings Trump anything.

We're now realizing that Vance may actually be detrimental to Donald Trump. He may actually be a net loss of votes for Trump. And the new favorability numbers propose exactly that. CNN political analyst did a segment where he said, I don't understand the pick. Neither do American voters. He breaks down J.D. or JP's popularity ratings and the average V.P. popularity since the year 2000 is plus 19. Now, the way you get that, as you say, favorable minus unfavorable and on average favorable is 19 points ahead of unfavorable. J.D. is underwater. He is a minus six. The percentage of the country that sees him unfavorably exceeds that which sees him favorably by six percentage points.

Harry Enten says J.D. Vance is making history the wrong way. You know, one of the problems with these smug pricks is they don't realize that they're coming off like smug pricks very transparently and people don't like them. And that sort of seems to be what's going on here. Here's a funny little just a short clip of an interview that CNN did with a Pennsylvania voter who is not thrilled with the selection of J.D. How do you feel about Trump's VP pick J.D. Vance? He's kind of like a little loud and obnoxious. Yes, he and some will dominate that. Yeah. Loud and obnoxious. That may be maybe. So there's a few different reasons that we like this.

If we are against Trump getting four more years as president. The reason, number one, that Vance being unpopular is good is that maybe it hurts Trump. Second reason that J.D. Vance being unpopular is good. It will anger Trump as reportedly he was about to select Doug Burgum, Governor Doug Burgum, to be his running mate. And these are reports, right? They are they true? We're not sure, but it is being pretty widely reported that Trump was about to select Doug Burgum to be his running mate, who might not add to the campaign, but would not detract in the way that J.D. Vance seems to

actively be detracting. And a combination of Don Jr. and or Eric Trump convince their dad, absolutely do not go with Doug Burgum, go with J.D. Vance. And if that is the way that it ended up that way, Trump presumably would be maybe mad at his kids, but more importantly, sees the headlines, sees the unfavorability, sees J.D. Vance completely fail at every campaign event. And this will trigger him and send him down an even more extreme downward spiral, which could then have the follow on kind of signal boosting vicious circle effect of hurting the campaign even even more. So I'm quite pleased with the selection of J.D. Vance from the standpoint of hurting Trump. And it seems the

polling is going the exact same way. We have a voicemail number. That number is two one nine two. David P. Here is a voicemail about the conspiracy theory that Biden didn't really have covid. And what's funny is the caller is confused about the conspiracy theory that Biden didn't really have COVID. And what's funny is the caller is confused about the conspiracy theory, which makes sense because it's a really confusing conspiracy theory. Hi, David. I was wondering, have you heard anything about this thing with Kamala stepping up to be the president and or not the president, but the candidate, I mean, and and and Joe pretending to be sick or something. I heard that this was like some kind of play to to play on Donald Trump.

I was just wondering if you knew anything about that, if you'd heard anything about that. I have. And I was also very curious to know, what did you talk to the vice president about when you guys, when you, when creators like yourself went to go visit with her. So I'm very curious to know all these things, though. OK, so a couple of different things.

My sit down with some creators and the vice president was off the record, which means I'm not supposed to describe the specifics of the conversation. I'm going along with that because when you're told that this is these are the ground rules, you have to respect that. OK, but there was nothing mind blowing or groundbreaking. I've already said that generally I asked about what the plan is and the level of concern with anti Biden sentiment in places like Michigan due to handling of Israel, Gaza. It's like completely irrelevant now, especially given everything that's going on.

And everybody asked different questions with regard to the Biden faking covid thing. I have heard it. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The idea one version of it was Biden faked covid to justify getting out of the race because he had said the day before I would get out if I was told by doctors that I have a serious medical condition. The thing is, he's already recovered from covid. He's addressing the nation tonight. So it just doesn't like he wouldn't need to fake covid to justify getting out of the race. It didn't come up in any way in the statements he's made so far about getting out of the race. It didn't change the minds of those who said he should or shouldn't. There were people who thought

before his covid that he should get out of the race, people who thought he shouldn't. It just the conspiracy theory doesn't make a lot of sense because it's not there's not even motive. There's sometimes with conspiracy theories, we identify motive, but we have nothing else. And then we have to say maybe not a good conspiracy theory because we have motive, but no actual evidence. We don't even really have motive here. And so I did hear that conspiracy theory. It didn't make a lot of sense to me on the bonus show today, Elon Musk told Jordan Peterson he never committed to donating forty five million dollars a month to Donald Trump. Now, whether that's true or not is less relevant than the fact that Elon Musk will not be donating forty five million dollars a month to Donald

Trump, even though Trump believed that he would. That's bad for Donald Trump and good for Kamala Harris. Number two, former Democratic presidential contender Andrew Yang says that he will support Kamala Harris for president in November. This disappointed some of the Yang gang, but others say, hey, good thing that he's doing this. And number three, a new study finds that dogs can smell stress. What does this mean and how is this being used in a lot of different contexts? Super interesting. Super interesting. All of these stories and more on today's bonus show. You can sign up and get instant access at join Pacman dot com. You can use the coupon code Save Democracy 24 to get a discount off of the

cost of membership. And also remember that my forthcoming book, The Echo Machine, not a children's book, a real adult big boy book or big girl book is now available for preorder everywhere. The Echo Machine on Audible, Kindle, Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Bookshop dot org, Apple Books and platforms I haven't even heard of, quite frankly, quite frankly. Check it out. Let me know if you preordered it. I'll see you on the bonus show and we'll be back here tomorrow.