The David Pakman Show - Everyone is turning on Trump now

Episode Date: April 15, 2026

-- On the Show -- Donald Trump claims he posted an image of himself as a doctor while denying it resembles Jesus and faces criticism from right-wing allies -- Donald Trump clashes with Riley Gaines despite previously supporting her as she responds by reaffirming loyalty and downplaying the conflict -- Reports describe widespread use of stimulants and sedatives in Donald Trump’s White House as a factor in chaotic behavior -- Marjorie Taylor Greene publicly questions Donald Trump’s mental fitness and calls for action after controversial remarks -- Early 2028 election discussions show a gap between media narratives and polling data for both parties -- Growing tipping expectations across industries frustrate consumers as prices rise and social pressure to tip increases -- On the Bonus Show: Updates from Argentina, and much more... 💪 AG1 is offering you $126 in FREE gifts at https://drinkag1.com/pakman 🔊 Blinkist: Read a nonfiction book in just 15 minutes! Try it FREE at https://blinkist.com/pakman 🛌 Helix Sleep mattresses: Get 27% OFF sitewide at https://helixsleep.com/pakman 🥄 Magic Spoon: Use code PAKMAN for $5 off at https://magicspoon.com/pakman -- Become a Member: https://davidpakman.com/membership -- Subscribe to our (FREE) Substack newsletter: https://davidpakman.substack.com -- Get David's Books: https://davidpakman.com/echo -- TDPS Subreddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/thedavidpakmanshow -- David on Bluesky: https://davidpakman.com/bluesky -- David on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/davidpakmanshow (00:00) Trump faces backlash over Jesus image (07:31) Trump and Riley Gaines clash publicly (16:37) Claims surface about White House staff access to medication (24:29) MTG questions Trump’s recent behavior (33:43) Early 2028 polling shows uncertainty (46:39) Tipping expectations continue to rise Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

We need to seriously ask a question that I would never hope to have to ask about a president. Is Trump oriented to time and place? This is the basic question that doctors observe when a patient comes in. Do they know who they are, where they are, and when it is? And it increasingly doesn't seem as though Trump is oriented to the most basic realities of the world around him. Donald Trump was asked, did you post that picture of yourself depicted as Jesus Christ? Some have already told us from the White House that it was a staffer who posted it. And Trump says, I did post it. But he makes a claim that either suggests Donald Trump is in deep

cognitive decline or, or he is a liar. He says, I wasn't depicted as Jesus in the image. I was depicted as a doctor. Maybe this is finally Trump's health care plan. Take a look at this. Did you post that picture of yourself depicted as Jesus Christ? Well, it wasn't a picture. It was me. I did post it and I thought it was me as a doctor and had to do with Red Cross as a red cross worker there, which we support. And only the fake news could come up with that one. So I had, I just heard about it. And I said, how did they come up with that? that it's supposed to be me as a doctor making people better. And I do make people better. I make people a lot better. As an example, the 11,000, I understand your husband's going through

treatment. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. He's going through some very serious cancer treatment. So this goes a long way. Yes, sir. It sure does. Now, this is the image in question that we're putting up. And it is Donald Trump in a sort of white flowing robe of sorts with a red. I don't even know what you would call it. I don't want to use the wrong term. A sort of red thing on top of himself like a oversized scarf or something like that. There's probably some name for this religious item. Does that look like any doctor you have ever seen? I'm familiar with the white coat with the stethoscope look. That one I'm familiar with for doctors. I know the shirt and tie with slacks look that a lot of doctors will do. I know the puffy vest with the doctor's name and then MD on it. I've seen that one. Sometimes my doctor walks in with that. You know what? I even am familiar with scrubs. The other day, my doctor walked in with scrubs for no reason. I don't even, he just works at, you know, just like a primary care small office. He doesn't do procedures or anything. I was like,

oh, what's with the scrubs? He goes, sometimes I just like wearing them, you know, makes me feel a doctor. I've seen all of those looks. I have never seen this be how a doctor dresses, gilded white flowing robes with this red thing. Now, the only possible upside to this if we want to interpret it really generously is maybe Trump doesn't really see himself as Jesus. He might be so cognitively disabled that he thinks this is what doctors look like. Even dofacy right-wing influencers knew that this was Trump as Jesus. We looked at what Riley Gaines had to say about it. Maga influencer Michael Knowles says that the post is sacrilegious and should come down because,

of course, that's Trump depicted as Jesus. Take a look at this. The line that I think that offended not only the Catholics, but the Protestants as well, is the post that followed immediately after the post post, the Pope post. Sally sold seashells by the seashore. It's very difficult to say all those words in a row. The president posts this picture of, it's a meme. It's like an art meme of him.

It appears to be as Jesus holding what might divine light, whether that's the blessed sacrament or whether that's just a divine light in clothing that is typical of Christ in artistic depictions, putting his hand on an ailing man, healing. him with these angels or demons or celestial beings coming out of the clads at the American flag. And it's obviously kind of trolly. It's Trump is what I think Trump is trying to say here is, look, I'm healing the country. I'm really great for the country. And I think even further he's trying to say, I've been really good for Christians.

You know, Joe Biden locked up Christians, locked up pro-life Catholic grannies. And I pardoned them. And I let them out. And I overruled Roe v. Wade. And I've been good for religious liberty. I'm good. You know, what's the matter with you Christians? What more do you want from me?

I think that's what he's trying to say. But the post is sacrilegious. It just is. It's just inescapable. It's just a sacrilegious post. To put oneself in the position of Christ is just sacrilegious. I don't think that was the intention exactly. I don't think this was thought out for all that long.

I think it was a meme. And so I would say with all the grace that we can give and all the charity with which we can speak, it is a fact that in an irreverent age, sometimes people don't know what taboos. are legit and what taboos are nonsense. What taboos are woke, shibboleths that should be made fun of. In that irreverent age, we just, you know, sometimes comedians, they tell a joke that's a little at a line. And I would say in this case, for both spiritual reasons and political reasons, I'm sure someone's already told the president this, but if not, the post should come down. Simple as. You know, I don't really agree with the value.

that Michael knows knows places on this entire thing. But his analysis is of course correct that that is Trump depicted as Jesus. Now, one of the just little quick bonus things here, which we're going to get back to when Donald Trump was asked about this, he was in the middle of what I call the DoorDash stunt where the White House ordered through DoorDash and a woman who is now colloquially known as DoorDash Grandma, she delivered the food to Trump. And Trump said to her, her during this whole thing about Trump as the doctor. Do you think men should play in women's sports? And she goes, I don't have an opinion on that. Take a look at this real quick. They want to have men playing in women's sport. Do you think that men should play in women's sports?

I really don't have an opinion on that. You don't. I'll bet you do. No, I'm here about pizza on tips. Yeah. So we're going to actually delve into that much, much more deeply because what's fascinating is DoorDash Grandma, is overlooking the cultural stuff and focusing on the economic. She goes, I care about no tax on tips. Now, no tax on tips isn't a thing. Trump lied to the country and his followers about no tax on tip. I'm in a deep dive that in a moment.

But it is a remarkable example of how DoorDash Grandma doesn't care about the Jesus picture and says, I don't have an opinion on men and women sports. What I care about is the economy, my pocketbook, my checkbook. that may be highly relevant as we approach the November midterms. Donald Trump has turned on one of his biggest supporters. It is over the Jesus image, which says, which by the way, Trump now says is him as a doctor, not him as Jesus, but we will get to that in a little bit. So here's what's going on.

Donald Trump posted an image, stylizing himself as Jesus, touching and healing a man. There was widespread outrage over this from the left and from the right. And ultimately, Donald Trump took this image down. Trump was asked whether the criticism from former swimmer, now right-wing agitator Riley Gaines, was part of why he did this. And here's what he had to say. The report says, quote, earlier Monday on X, conservative activist Riley Gaines, said she couldn't understand why Trump posting the image, posted the image, asking, does he actually

like this? She added that, quote, a little humility would serve him well, and that, quote, God shall not be mocked. When asked if he took the post down because of Gaines's and other criticism, President Trump said, no, I didn't listen to Riley Gaines. I'm not a big fan of Riley, actually. Now, that is significantly undercut by images, for example, of Donald Trump embracing Riley Gaines, including at CPAC, a video where Trump was going to be signing an anti-trans bill. And he praised Riley Gaines. He seemed to be a very big fan of Riley Gaines. And Riley Gaines did respond to this where she said, quote, I love the president and I'm so grateful he's in the Oval Office. Of course, I'll continue to support him and the America

First Agenda. At the end of the day, I do nothing for the approval of man. Our purpose on this earth is to glorify him in all we do. She's referring to Jesus, not to Trump. The truth social posts missed the mark. It's now deleted. Amazing. We're imperfect people. I know I am. I don't get my feelings heard easily. And I know the president with the president. It's not really personal. I want to spend eternity in a real place called heaven, I'd love for Trump to be there too. Jesus is the way, the truth in the life. I'll keep doing my part by speaking truth and doing my best to lead others to Christ. And no, I won't be selling merch with his insults on them.

So there's a couple interesting things here that I want to talk about. Number one, these are extremely boring, culturally. irrelevant people. I have a challenge for you. If you like beating the crap out of yourself, try listening to 10 full minutes of Riley Gaines's podcast. And you will see that it is, you won't even really be angry. You'll just be bored. You won't care. You'll say, who on either side would care what Riley Gaines has to say? Even if you were sensitive or open to her arguments politically, It is just vapid nonsense from someone who is only even well known because of a lie. Now I'm going to get to that in a second.

Meanwhile, as is always the case with Donald Trump, I love Riley Gaines. She's great. I'm a fan. I embrace her. She's so good. She helped us get this anti-trans bill passed. Oh, she said something negative. Well, I'm not really a fan of Riley Gaines anymore.

Now, let me tell you the truth about Riley Gaines. Riley Gaines came to notoriety based on. the claim that she was denied a medal, which was actually a trophy, like every detail is just wrong. She was supposedly denied a swimming medal because a man in women's sports, uh, trans woman Leah Thomas beat her in swimming. This was the claim. Oh, Riley, I can't believe what's happened to you because of men and women's sports. You lost out on a medal. Let me tell you the truth of what happened back in 2022 riley gains competed in the nc w a championships and she did race against lea thomas in the 200 yard freestyle final they tied for fifth place neither of them won the event they were both

behind multiple other swimmers so even the story riley was denied a medal it was trophies it was trophies. Riley was denied a trophy. Gaines didn't finish first except for the trans athlete and thus she was second. She didn't finish second and because of the trans athlete, she was third. She tied for fifth place. She wasn't going to get a trophy. They don't even award medals in the NCAA. She wasn't going to get a trophy except for were it not for the presence of the trans. swimmer, Leah Thomas. So even the reason we know of Riley Gaines is completely fake. The fake scapegoating of Leah Thomas and the fake martyrdom. I don't even know what you would call it of Riley Gaines. So like we shouldn't even know who she is. Her podcast is a complete and total

dud, but Trump did welcome her into this inner circle of people he points to during a state of the union address, not specifically with Riley Gaines. I don't think she's been at a state of the union, but the idea of here is someone. Look at this person. This person embodies and reminds us of the problem that I'm fixing. What did you fix? She tied for fifth. And now there's this split because at the end of the day, what matters with Trump is just loyalty. And she had the audacity to say, I don't like this post. And Trump didn't like that. So just a reminder, we shouldn't even know who she is. is because the whole reason for her come to fame is fabricated out of thin air. Spring can get sort of unpredictable in terms of your routine, different schedules, more going

out. And it is really easy for basic habits to just fall off. That's why I like simplicity and things I can stick to. Like, for example, AG1. Our sponsor AG1 is a daily health drink that supports gut health and can just fill nutrient gaps with 75 plus ingredients, including probiotics, rather than juggling supplements and vitamins and multiple packages and containers, it's just one scoop mixed with water and that's it. I love simple. Most supplement routines get complicated. You've got a pile of pills and different timings and all this stuff. I think the only systems that work are the ones that are simple and you can actually stay. to. And so AG1 will simplify everything into a single daily habit you can be consistent with.

It supports digestion. You're not trying to piece all of it together separately. It just makes sense. Go to drinkag1.com slash Pacman to get an AG1 flavor sampler and a bottle of vitamin D3 plus K2 for free in your AG1 welcome kit with your first subscription order. That's a $72 dollar value, the link is in the description. Finding time to read as much nonfiction as I want to read is difficult and it can be difficult for a lot of people who love learning about complex topics. You just don't necessarily have the time. That's why Blinkist is such a powerful tool.

Imagine being able to read a nonfiction book in just 15 minutes. Blinkist is the app that will condense the key insights from major nonfiction types. into these short summaries you can read or listen to in a single sitting. You still grasp the book's central argument and its takeaways. Blinkist has over 9,000 titles across politics, economics, science, philosophy, business. I recently listened to Blinkist summary of a book called Dopamine Nation by psychiatrist Anna Lemke. And it looks at the relationship between pleasure and pain in this kind of modern world that's filled with more stimmering you'll lie than ever, Blinkist perfectly guided me through the most important concepts.

And now I actually want to read the entire book. That's another thing Blinkist is great for. Test the book out before you decide whether to dive into the entire thing. You can try Blinkist completely free for a whole week and get 30% off a subscription at Blinkist.com slash Pacman. So listen, it seems as though the Trump White House is on drugs. This is not my speculation. I'm not going to show you videos of someone rocking back and forth like Hitler on amphetamines

or violently shaking their leg. It's a report from Rolling Stone that points out, you know how a lot of these White House people and Trump's White House seem erratic and chaotic and all over the place. And usually we talk about personality and ideology and a desire to please the leader. And of course, there's incompetence and infighting. It creates these crazy situations at the Trump White House. There's another piece of the story that according to Rolling Stone isn't getting the attention it deserves.

And it might explain a lot about what's going on because the piece from Rolling Stone says that the Trump White House and the reporting is from the first term, but I think certainly there's no reason to think it wouldn't apply to the second term. It was a medicated White House. It wasn't tightly controlled and in a normal way where everybody was meeting with a doctor. and being evaluated and prescribed thoughtfully, it was essentially a handout of stimulants and sedatives casually being given to whoever with very limited oversight and almost no record keeping whatsoever.

And if you're trying to understand the behavior, this could explain a lot of it. There's a former official who described it as a White House, quote, a wash in speed, speed referring to uppers. And in fact, they weren't even really referring to uppers. Oftentimes, it was provigil, provigil, which is also known by the, I guess it would be the, the provigil is the brand name. The medication is medaphanal. It's a, what's say? It's basically meant to keep you awake. It's not a stimulant in the amphetamine sense, but it's not altogether different. And so what you've got is people working insane hours. They're dealing with. the constant pressure of an orange madman hovering over them figuratively, if not literally,

nonstop media, fights and flights all over the world, the Mueller investigation, whatever the latest thing is that's a crisis in the White House. And instead of dealing with that stress structurally, they were taking drugs like provisial to push through it. It promotes wakefulness. That's the word that I was looking for. It changes how people function. So that's one side. the provisial side, you then have the downer side. And what's wild about this, I'm not suggesting Trump is on this stuff, although we might be. I mean, now that we know that provigil and Xanax were floating around, we saw upper Trump and we saw downer Trump. We saw the Trump that was high energy, and we saw the Trump that was very low energy. And we thought maybe it's related to mood or whatever.

I don't know. Now we know that provigil and Xanax were floating around. And Xanax was also widely available, high levels of stress and anxiety going on there. Xanax is an anxiety medication. And there are some sources to Rolling Stone that say Xanax was mixed with alcohol, which doctors specifically tell you do not do. These can have cumulative effects. They can depress respiration. It can be very risky. So what you end up with is a cycle. It was a White House that was on uppers to keep going in the insanity and then downers to try to come down from the incredible stress and insanity of the day and the uppers. This is not a stable environment whatsoever.

It's like a it's a chemically managed environment. And when you're dealing with issues that affect 350 million Americans and quite frankly the entire world, do you really want the world run by people on alternating doses of provisial and Xanax? I don't know about that. So when you think about the behavior that we were seeing and covering during that first term, which was a ton of short tempers, impulsive decisions that didn't make sense, paranoia, a sense of crisis, you start to look at it differently when you understand the drugs that were floating around. Now, this does not explain everything, but it is really hard to ignore what is happening in the background when you see the foreground chaos that is endless.

And the reporting from Rolling Stone also points to really sloppy handling of these drugs. Records were incomplete or missing. Distribution wasn't properly tracked. And in any normal setting, that alone would be a huge violation. And it seems like this is just kind of the way that it worked at the time. Another source said it was the Wild West for drugs, which is kind of how the administration was functioning in a lot of different ways. And then you add in one more layer, which is that there were staff.

working there who believed that their medical privacy was not guaranteed or secure. If they were in therapy, if they were formally prescribed a medication, they thought that that information would not necessarily be private and it might go up the chain of command and they might even face repercussions. You're in therapy? Wait a second. Hold on. You're not even supposed to know that I'm in therapy. And there was a sense that none of that information was really private. So you've got people under extreme stress, they've got easy access to drugs in an environment where they don't even trust the system around them. And so they go, give me this, give me that. Let's keep it off the record. Now, there is an incredible irony here. Publicly, this was an administration that talked

about being tough on drugs. Privately, it seems as though that is not a standard that applied inside the White House, which is the classic double standard of MAGA that we've been covering and talking about for a long time. Now, medications have always been available to White House staff. It's not, it's not unusual or wrong that within the White House medical system, you could obtain medication. That's not a new thing. What's different is just it's all loose. Trump, now congressman, former Trump doctor Ronnie Jackson supposedly was handing this stuff out like Pez. And it was all completely normalized and it seems to have been extremely widely used. So as we go back to the first term and also think about the behavior and what we observed during

this term, the unpredictability, the impulsive decisions, the straight is open and then it's closed or Trump did it, Trump didn't do it. That may have nothing to do with medication. It might be politics. It might be people's personalities. But it also might be about medication. And once you factor that in, it almost makes more sense. what we saw. Now, the Rolling Stone article doesn't name names. It doesn't say, oh, Caroline

Levitt was always hopped up on provigial. It doesn't say Stephen Miller was on Xanax when he decided that we've got to do this, that the other thing with a Muslim ban or whatever. It doesn't make those claims. But this is so extremely widespread that it must have included, it must have included some of the at least semi-senior people. I would love to have Sarah Matthews back on and talk to her about this now that this report is out. But it seems as though this potentially explains some of what was going on. By the way, these were bad people regardless. I don't want to do this thing where, you know, sometimes we go, they're mentally ill. Well, they may be or they may not be, but you could be mentally ill and not a horrible person. Most people that might be loosely

defined as mentally ill are not horrible people who would carry out some of the insanity that this administration did, illuminating to a great degree. Well, this is very very, very, very, different. If I told you, someone says Trump's brain isn't working. Oh, David, it must be you saying it. It must be some left wing content creator or maybe a maybe on MSNBC MS now someone is suggesting maybe Trump is in decline. No, no, no. Former Republican Congresswoman, hardcore Magapitanian, Magidonian even, Marjorie Taylor Green. now says Trump doesn't appear cognitively fit to do the job. This is one of those moments where you do a double take and you go, yes, the message makes sense, but who is who is saying it?

Because the person now raising concerns about Donald Trump's mental state is no Democrat, no liberal pundit and no communist agitator. It is Marjorie Taylor Green. And she is now openly questioning whether Donald Trump is mentally fit for office. Hint, he's not. And she even suggests that he should be removed after threatening to wipe Iran off the map. She is calling his sanity into question, saying he should be removed from office for threatening to wipe out an entire civilization. Let's take a look at the clip.

More attention where the president said a whole civilization will die tonight. And congresswoman, former congresswoman Green, you know, you posted. about that after the president had made that threat. He went off on Tucker Carlson, Megan Kelly, several people who have been pretty big champions of his in the past. And he also went after you. You responded to that post about a whole civilization will die with, in all caps, 25th Amendment and three exclamation points.

Do you really think that the president should be removed from office? I think we have to truly question the mental stability of any president that, threatens to wipe out an entire civilization of people. That would include all the innocent people in that country that have nothing to do with the war, especially after President Trump said this was about freeing the Iranian people from the Iranian regime. So for him to call to wipe out an entire civilization of people, it is absolutely wrong. But, you know, this is someone, Marjorie, who was for years, one of Donald Trump's most loyal

defenders. One of the loudest MAGA voices that said Trump can do no wrong. This is such a special person. He will deliver us to prosperity. And you wouldn't expect her to say something like this. And now she's saying it. Now, of course, a lot of you will note that Marjorie Taylor Green resigned from Congress. She broke with Trump. Trump turned against her. So this is not coming from someone currently inside the MAGA movement or a current elected official. That's that's true. They she doesn't have anything to lose and that is important context, but the bigger point that I want to make and I believe actually matters more is that for every Republican, she's still a Republican. She's not an elected official. She broke with Trump. But for every Republican who publicly says something like this, no matter the circumstances, there are many more who are thinking it. It's sort of like an iceberg. You know, I don't even know if it's true, but you hear that thing about the iceberg you see above the water line is like 10% of the iceberg or only five. So there's another 90 or 95% below the surface. When a Republican says this, it's not only because she is no longer a Congresswoman that she believes this.

It might be why she's saying it, but there are a whole bunch of other Republicans who are thinking this exact same thing. They see the clips that we see. They hear the disjointed speeches that we hear. They watch the interviews where Trump rambles and confuses names and drifts off and escalates into extreme rhetoric that makes no sense. They're not unaware. The difference is they're too cowardly to say it. And that's ultimately what this comes down to. Just imagine for a second what would happen if even a fraction of Republican elected officials,

even if it was 1% of all of them at the state and federal level, if they decided to be honest at the same time. And instead of pretending that everything's fine, oh, that whole thing about Trump's brain, that's just left-wing propaganda. If they said, nah, his behavior is concerning. I agree with this tariff policy. I don't know why, but I agree with this tariff policy, but this isn't normal. Something is wrong with the guy.

Instantly, if that happened, the national conversation would change. And you would suddenly have real bipartisan discussions about fitness for office. You would have at least the possibility of accountability. And you might even have the beginning of something resembling normal politics again. But they don't do it because they are afraid. They're afraid of Trump. They're afraid of Trump's base. They're afraid of getting voted out and losing their next primary or maybe they're afraid of mean

troth posts from Donald Trump or whatever. So instead, they shut their mouths and the concerns are whispered privately. Oh, I'm very concerned, but I don't say anything publicly. They talk to reporters anonymously about this, if at all. But when the camera turns on, everything's fine. President Trump is doing what he promised to do during the campaign and Joe Biden was terrible and Obama was terrible and that's it. That's the frustrating part because this is way bigger than Trump.

It exposes the Republican Party as happy with a system in which they know better, but they don't say a word. And they just allow it to continue festering and perpetuating itself. And every once in a while when someone like Marjorie Taylor Green or whoever, Adam Kinzinger Liz Cheney, they break ranks and they say the quiet part out loud, either about Trump. Trump's authoritarianism or the cognitive stuff or whatever, they are seen as the exception. Now, they may not be the majority of Republicans, but there are a lot of Republicans who believe the exact same thing because they see the exact same thing.

So it's easy to see this clip of Marjorie Taylor Green and to focus on her and to say she doesn't matter. She quit. Trump already hates her. Mathematically, there are dozens or hundreds of other elected Republicans who believe the exact same thing and they say nothing, nothing. And so step one in trying to push this is reporters should be asking them at every opportunity assess Donald Trump's cognitive state. Do you think it's perfect? Do you think that he's running on all cylinders? Or is the hamster

wheel spinning, but the hamster is dead, which I think is the most apropos analogy at this point for what's going on. If even a few of these elected Republicans spoke out, I believe the country would look very different right now. And by the way, if they had spoken out about Trump's authoritarianism and his cognitive decline prior to the 2024 election, if there had been serious Republican voices saying that, I don't think Trump ever would have even gotten himself elected. If you don't have the mattress that is best suited for you specifically, it can wreak havoc on your sleep. Our sponsor, Helix Sleep, makes it easy to stop the guessing. Find the mattress that is right for you. On the Helix website, you answer a few questions about your sleep style, body type, possible back

issues. They will pair you with the mattress best suited for you. Before I got my Helix mattress, I took their sleep quiz, answered simple questions, and Helix matched me with the mattress that was perfect for me. Even after having the mattress all these years, it just feels great. I love it. I sleep well. Helix mattresses ship free in the United States. Every mattress comes with a lifetime limited warranty and you get 120 nights to try it so you can really make sure it is the right fit for you. Go to helix sleep.com slash Pacman and you'll get 20% off sitewide. The link is in the description. It is not easy to find a sweet, satisfying snack that you won't feel guilty about eating.

And that is why I love our sponsor, Magic Spoon. Magic Spoon treats are crispy, airy snack bars packed with 12 grams of protein and seven grams of fiber. Zero grams of added sugar. Easy to throw in your bag. I take Magic Spoon Treats with me to the studio for a quick snack. They taste nothing like a boring. protein bar, more like cereal bars, delicious, and they come in flavors like marshmallow, chocolate peanut butter, double chocolate. Also check out Magic Spoon's new protein pastries,

which you pop in the toaster. Of course, their iconic breakfast cereals as well. Look for Magic Spoon at your local grocery store. They've also rolled out treats nationwide at 7-Eleven, but you will get $5 off when you go to magic spoon.com slash Pacman. The link is in the description. All right. We are still years away from the 2028 election, but there is so much happening right now. I want to dig through what's happening on the Democratic and Republican sides. Many of you have written to me with considerations, with questions, with raising aspects of what

is developing on both the Democratic and the Republican side. I think it's a good idea to talk about it. Both parties are publicly, seemingly. in one direction with who they're going to nominate. But then when you look at the polling, it looks different. And then when you look at the betting markets, it again looks different. So let's compare all of it. And one of the things that is already clear is that there seems to be a disconnect between what people are talking about, what the data is saying and what the money is saying, all of which I believe matter. So if you look at the Democratic side, if you follow political

media, podcasts, Twitter, the online spaces, you would think that the 2028 primary is basically Gavin Newsom versus Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. That's the biggest conversation that is happening on most of those platforms just in terms of the sheer numbers. But then you look at the polling. when you look at the polling, the situation all of a sudden starts to look a little bit different. Where you have Kamala Harris far out ahead of Gavin Newsome with about 27% of the vote on average, Gavin Newsom at 19, a cost a boot edge edge at close to 11, AOC at 8, Congressman Josh Shapiro just

under seven and Senator Mark Kelly at five. So the online. conversation is already looking very different than the polling conversation. But then you look at the betting markets. And for example, on Kalshi, it does more closely reflect what is happening in the public conversation. Gavin Newsom is leading the betting markets with 26%. Then it's AOC at 11. John Ossif at 7%, which is fascinating because he's not even polling anywhere in the lead in any of the polls. Kamala Harris is is there. Kamala Harris is there with under 6% and then you've got boot edge edge Shapiro, Mark Kelly. Okay. So that's already a very different picture than the public picture. So we have a conversation that is being driven to a great degree by media narratives and some

people are kind of wish casting their ideology onto the primary. And then there's also the question of who people want to talk about. But the polling is still picking up name recognition where Kamala Harris certainly has an advantage there, presumed institutional support, default voters. Harris is not the exciting pick. And a lot of the conversation online has nothing to do with Kamala Harris. I've said, by the way, I don't think she is the ideal nominee. I don't even think she should run. Now, I don't think she should run is different than she should be blocked from running.

There should be a robust primary. If she determines she wants to run, she should be allowed to run and voters should have their say, but she's the one currently quietly leading in the polling and that's very different from the conversation. We then have the Republican side. Now, in the Republican side, the media narrative has been shaping up as J.D. Vance is the default. And then you've got Marco Rubio. That's the serious conversation.

Pundits are debating it. Even pundits are debating it. I still don't know what those are, but I hear that word all the time, pundits. And I'm like, what are you talking about? They're pundits. They're all debating it. The conversation around Trump has become which direction is Trump going to go in terms of an endorsement. Trump seems uncertain and lacking confidence.

You look at the polling for the Republican primary and you've got Vance way ahead with 44. But then in second place, it's Donald Trump Jr. Someone who's getting zero attention in a lot of the discussion spaces is actually polling second, disgustingly. Then it's Rubio at 13 and a half. Ron DeSantis is further back at seven. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. at four. Nikki Haley at 3.3. So that's the polling for Republicans.

And then the numbers again look very different if you look at the betting markets where on Calci it is Vance in first at 36. Marco Rubio in second at a much closer 27. Then it's Tucker, Ron DeSantis at four. And then beyond that is Donald J. Trump Jr. at 3%. Hilariously, there's 2.6% of the money behind the current president, Donald J. Trump. So three different pictures. And you see that Donald Trump Jr. figures significantly in one space, but not in another.

So let's kind of dive into what the dynamics are of this entire thing. of all, would it be unusual that the Twitter energy, the Reddit energy, the feel among the spaces of those who are very online would be different than the polling? No, that's actually very common. In fact, back in 2020, I still remember difficult conversations with the audience where I said, as a Bernie supporter to my audience, we shouldn't ignore the fact that the polling doesn't suggest Bernie is as strong as some of the online spaces think. And I told my audience, while I am a Bernie supporter, I also try to deliver to you what I believe to be the truth. And I think that the online spaces are significantly undercounting support for Joe Biden, not because I was happy about that,

but because I thought it was the truth. And indeed, it did shape up to be one of those scenarios. So I think at this point, the most important takeaways are, number one, there are so many people, people sampling, especially on the Democratic side, sampling sort of what are the winds feeling like? And some of them are sampling it by showing up in early primary states. Some of them are sampling it by writing a book and seeing what the sort of vibe is when they do book events and interviews. Others are doing media tours. There's a lot of different sampling going on. And I think that accurately there is the belief among some that, you know, that, you know, that, you there may not be room for all of them in the Democratic primary. Now, what do I mean for that?

David, are you saying people should not run? No, no, no, no, no. Everybody who wants to run should run. The most, the strongest candidate will come out of defeating other contenders. So that's not about that. But I think there's a practical reality in which if you look at the hypothetical candidates, uh, Gavin Newsom, Josh Shapiro, J.B. Pritzker, Wes Moore. They are all similarly placed on the political spectrum. And so they must be thinking if we each immediately join and get a few percentage points, are we competing for the same voters? And does that hurt all of us or does that put us in a position to win? I think these are the sort of questions that are coming up. Again, I mean, as a Democratic primary voter who has a personal interest and a professional interest in this primary, I have no interest in keeping anybody out.

I don't want the DNC putting their thumb on the scale. I don't want gaslighting with respect to someone should not run because they can't win. There's a lot of people I don't think can win a primary or a general election. But if they determine that they want to run, we are all better off. saying let the, let the voters have their say, absolutely. Now, I will also mention I wouldn't be against reorganizing the Democratic primary so that there is this less of this, well, let's vote in our state based on who won a previous state. I would really rather just know who the voters want. And sometimes what you have when the primaries are staggered, as is always the case, is that the

later primary results are impacted by what earlier voters have already decided. And if people go, the person I actually think is best lost the first two primaries, maybe I'll vote differently in this third primary. Is it really representative of what voters want? Maybe not. Okay. So on the Democratic side, robust primary, get everybody in. I think that's great.

On the Republican side, the most interesting aspect of this is that two years ago, probably a year ago, certainly four years ago, there was this belief that when it's all said and done for Trump, he will be in a position to anoint an heir apparent. And before it was clear that he and Mike Pence were no longer going to be on speaking terms, the assumption was, well, it'll be Trump saying now it's time for Mike Pence to be the nominee. We know that's not going to happen. And then when it became J.D. Vance, then the assumption was, well, Trump will want to and will be in a position to say it's J.D's turn.

But there are two really critical things taking place already. that make me doubt whether that's going to take place. Number one is that it's not clear Trump actually wants it to be J.D. Vance. We, as I mentioned earlier, there's this ambivalence with Marco Rubio, who should I pick, what's best for me to do? Trump always wants to pick a winner. And so at the end of the day, Trump is going to be highly impacted by who he is told is more likely to win because he wants to pick a winner.

But the second part, and this is maybe the most interesting, is that Trump is already so diminished in terms of his influence that I don't know that he is in a position to tell the Republicans who the nominee should be. And he may not be able to annoy anybody. And so especially if Democrats win the House in November, which I believe they will, and especially if Democrats win it by a lot and embroil Trump in investigations and oversight and maybe an impeachment in the last two years of his presidency, Trump's influence may be so diminished by the time the Republican primary starts, that he may have the desire, but not the power and influence

to actually choose his successor. I want to hear from you. Who are you looking at? And then I guess I wasn't going to do this, but I think it would be a disservice if I didn't. There are already people who say that they are on the left. Now, whether they are really in what I identify as the political left or whether they are sort of something else is a different question, but there are are people who claim to be on the left already ruling out a whole bunch of candidates. I will never vote for ex-candidate. I think that that's pretty dumb. And I'll give you an example.

I don't think Kamala Harris should run. I think that it's time for a battle between other candidates in the primary without the presence of Kamala Harris based on how the last election went. my opinion, should she be prevented from running? No, she should be allowed to run. And I would not vote for her in the primary, most likely, based on some of the other people that might run. However, it would be really weird if I said today, if Kamala's the nominee, I will stay home. That'd be pretty stupid of me to say. And a lot of you would be right to call me out. And you would write to me and you would say, well, David, are you saying that if it's Kamala versus Don Jr. in 28, you'll stay home.

Are you saying that if it's Kamala versus J.D. Vance or Tucker Carlson or whatever, you'll stay home? Of course not. I'm always going to vote for the person that I think is the best option or the least bad option. And so it would be very strange today for me to declare, if it's Kamala, I will never vote for her. There are already some people on the left doing that stuff. I don't think it helps anybody other than whoever is the eventual Republican nominee. Let me know what you think. Leave a comment. email info at david packman.com. The David Packman show is an audience supported program and the best most direct way to support the show is by becoming a member at join packman.com.

You'll get the daily bonus show, the daily commercial free show, and plenty of other great membership perks. Get the full experience by signing up at join packman.com. All right. I'm going to rant a little bit here. If you hate this, I apologize, but I want to talk about something I just am so disgusted with. And I want to talk about tipping, tipping at not only restaurants, but everywhere. Now, I already know how this goes. The second you question tipping culture, people come out of the woodwork and

go, oh, David, you're so cheap. You just don't want to tip. Listen, I tip consistently and I tip well. And honestly, in the U.S. one out of 10 times I go out somewhere, a server or waitstaff or whatever recognizes me that they tell me. And so I have to assume that some people are recognizing me and don't tell me. And so even if it were only because I don't want to be the guy who people go, oh, you know, David Pakman was here. He didn't tip. I am tipping.

Okay. I am not the person stiffing the workers. That is not the issue here. The issue is the system is broken and it is disgusting, especially because I'm going to argue it's not even good for workers. It's not good for workers to have to ask for or rely on tips. Now look at what's happened over the last 10 to 15 years. Tipping at restaurants where it was a tipped wage, they made 263 an hour or some nominal

amount and tips were expected and part of their income. Tipping used to be 15%. It then went to 18. It then went to 20. Now when I get the iPad turned to me, sometimes it's 22, 25 and 30%. And if I only want to tip 20%, I have to go other and then type it in and they're staring at me and they're angry. And by the way, it's now considered standard to tip 22 or 25% in some places. For what exactly?

I'm expected to tip more than 20% at a place where. I go to the counter and stand very straight to place my order, bring my own food to the table, clean the table because after the last person left, nobody cleaned it, and then bus my table. And I'm expected to tip 22 or 25 or 30%. Now, this is not typical in most of the world. I want to get back to that. I'm in Argentina right now. Here, it's sort of like, listen, at very touristy places, they might expect up to,

a 10% tip for very good service. You might round up to the next dollar equivalent or whatever, but in most countries, it's not like in the United States. Think about the growing number of places where you are now being asked or offered the opportunity to tip. Of course, restaurants, self-service coffee shops, takeout counters, food trucks, self-service kiosks, ride share, delivery apps, hotel check-in in certain scenarios, even at some retail-type stores, I've gotten the iPad. Haircut, of course, I'm told Botox injectors expect tips. Everybody.

People report being asked for tips at auto repair shops after picking up their car. Even self-checkout screens in some places. So at some point, we have to ask, what are we tipping for? Then, but I've mentioned this, but then the iPad everywhere, we have a question for you. You have to answer a couple of questions. There's one question, which is how much do you want to tip? Now, it can get even weirder because more and more restaurants have also instituted service charges.

And sometimes there's a little note. We have added an 8% wage equity fee. We've added an 18% back of the house fee for the people you don't. interact with it is not a tip so you do the 18% and you're expected to tip 15, 18, 20, 25%. And so to go back to a simple example, you go buy a restaurant and you go, I'm going to get a burger. And the burger is $16. Hmm, all right.

But then there's an 18% service charge and then you're also expected to tip back of the house front of the house. It's not really a $16 burger. That's a $22 or $23 burger. Now, what I would prefer if $22 or $23 is what is required to cover all expenses or whatever, charge it as a price it as a $22 burger. And then I can decide, okay, I'm kind of estimating the quality of this burger. I'm looking around at the ambiance.

I'm seeing if there's table service or not. And then I can decide is a $22 or $23 burger worth it? I would much prefer that and let people decide based on what would really. be the price of the burger. Now, let's go back to it's sort of a pricing theater in a sense. Now, let's go back to the American aspect of this. Other countries do have tipping, but it's not like this. You know, in much of Europe, rounding up to the next euro is fine or nothing is also fine. 5% would be fine. 10% would be generous and at a nicer place where service is more deliberate. it. Multiple countries, tipping is often between two and five or maybe 10 percent. And it really is

optional. And here's the key part. Workers are paid wages, wages. The tip really is a bonus. In the United States, it's the opposite. It's not an extra. The tip is expected. Sometimes the tip is the majority of the workers' income. And that is an important aspect of this. Now, let me bring up one other part and then I'm going to kind of wind it all, wrap it all together. Service providers like haircuts, massage, personal training, they set their prices. Now, you might go, well, no, the personal trainer at a corporate gym doesn't set their price. Fine, but think about a plumber or an independent personal trainer or an independent licensed massage therapist. It's not a restaurant where you could argue, well, they have a low base wage and tips fill the gap. They could tell you,

this is a $120 massage. Okay. That's that's the price they've decided to charge for their labor. But when tips are expected on top of that, why? If what you really want is $140, tell me that that's the price and go, we don't do tips here. I've, it's $140 for the massage or the cut and color or whatever. And let me decide whether that's worth it. Don't, especially if you set your own prices, don't quote one number and expect another. I think that that part doesn't make sense and I think we need to change there as well. Now, let me get to the real part because so far it's a lot of complaining. This entire system isn't good for workers. Tipping shifts responsibility from the employer to the customer. It makes income unpredictable. It depends on the shift. It depends on the customers.

Are the customers foreign that day and may not be acquainted with what is expected of them? And it also introduces bias. We know tipping is weakly connected to actual service quality. A lot of it is people just tip a certain amount every time. And also there can be bias based on the worker in different ways. And it also creates attention because now it creates a tension to be clear. The worker is now depending on you. And you're standing there wondering if you're about to be judged for pressing the wrong button.

That's not really a normal transaction. In most industries, at least it used to be the case that the price was the price. You don't meet with your accountant and then get pro. Your taxes will be $1,800. Here's an iPad. How much do you want to tip? Now, that might start. It doesn't, that's not the case right now, but, but that's something that might start.

So I'm not saying I don't tip. I do tip, but we have created a system where customers feel pressured, workers feel dependent, businesses avoid responsibility and we pretend it's normal and I'm going to tell you something else. The idea that the possibility of a tip encourages better service, I don't really believe it. And I'll tell you, I'm here in Argentina. You go anywhere. There's a cafe I've been going to for breakfast. Tips are not expected there.

And the service is better than anywhere in the United States. Quite frankly, instead of having some completely furious. disconnected person who you go up to make an order and they can't be taken away from their phone for even a second and then they make your coffee in a paper cup and throw it at you and it's terrible. Okay. There's professional wait staff here. Now, they don't make a crazy amount of money, but relative to the economy, they are paid a wage that is not dependent on tips.

And the service is better. The service is universally better. So I don't even think that it works to encourage better service. Build it into the price. If the burger needs to be $22, make it a $22 burger. If the haircut needs to be $140, charge that and then let people decide, you know, that's crazy. I'm going to go and get a $9 haircut at whatever the place is. But the $9 haircut probably should be 20 because they're also expecting a tip.

We are outsourcing wages to social pressure. It doesn't make sense. I'm sick of it. Now I'm ready for the verbal beat down. Tell me where I'm wrong. Tell me if I'm right. Leave a comment. It's for the workers.

It would be better for the workers and for the customers to just have clear non-tip-based pricing.