Will Any State Flip Party in 2020 Presidential Election?


Next question today is, Hey, do you believe
that any state is going to flip party in the 2020 presidential election from the 2016 results? There’s actually a much bigger conversation
to be had here, but first let’s think it through. I think Arizona is certainly a possibility. Um, Donald Trump is a, the Democrats had a
very strong showing in Arizona, um, during the midterms and polling is looking very strong
in Arizona. So Arizona is a possibility that that might
flip in 2020 when we talk about key States that went to Trump, uh, by a little bit, but,
uh, in 2016 but could go the other way. North Carolina is certainly a possibility. George is a possibility, although less likely,
I think if Georgia goes blue in 2020, it will be a landslide against Donald Trump. I find it hard to believe there would be a
situation where Georgia is isolated as a state that flips and otherwise the election is basically
as in 2016 even though we have 50 individual elections, there are still trends and there
is still momentum. And I think if Georgia goes blue, um, a lot
of other things will go blue as well. I think it’s conceivable that Minnesota, if
you want to find a blue state that could go to Trump, it’s possible. Minnesota has been sort of a right leaning
a little bit lately and the numbers are not looking as cleanly positive for the eventual
democratic nominee. I don’t think that it’s super likely. There are people talking about New Hampshire
as well. Um, I think that there’s actually another
interesting possibility if we want to. So look at Florida for example. Florida is a state that is a very important
state in many elections because it sometimes goes to the Democrats, sometimes it goes to
the Republican and it’s often pretty close. I think that in 2020, we could have a pretty
wacky result where the popular vote results are very similar to 2016 and that the democratic
challenger will win by several million votes. But you could either have a Trump reelection
with a similar electorial vote margin, uh, as in 2016 or you could have a very similar
popular vote result and a democratic win if some key States, like for example, there,
there was a map I was looking at Florida and Ohio could remain with Trump, but he could
still lose Elekta morally. And um, there are some pretty wacky maps that,
uh, have been put together that are at least conceivably plausible based on state polling
right now. But if I had to say, what is the the most
likely flip, I think it’s Arizona to go blue, North Carolina, maybe to go blue. Uh, the governor there is somewhat popular. Um, and I, I think the one thing to consider
when we look at these numbers is that because there is no democratic nominee yet, the Republican
propaganda machine has not yet been able to just focus on any one democratic candidate. Whereas every democratic candidate has been
talking about Donald Trump. Sometimes even during the debates, democratic
candidates won’t even talk about their own policy. They will just, there’ll be asked a question
about what they would do and they will just criticize Donald Trump. We’ve seen a Pete Buddha judge do it. We’ve seen CommonWell Harris do it. I don’t, I won’t list everybody because almost
everyone has done it at least at some point during the debates. Uh, I think the most likely scenario in 2020
is very similar results nationally in the popular vote and close results in some of
these key States, which might go the other way this time. So I think that if a democratic candidate
is going to win and defeat Trump in November of 2020 you will see a similar popular vote
win as we saw in 2016 two three, 4 million votes, something like that. But you will see small margins go the other
way in those few key States that that made it for Trump, it was Wisconsin, it was Michigan,
Pennsylvania, North Carolina. That’s where I think you will see this election
won or lost. It’s not a reason to ignore other places. You still got to work in other places, but
I think ultimately small margins in those key States are going to be the difference
maker. Last question today. Hey David. How will Joe Biden handle Ukraine attacks
from Donald Trump if he becomes the nominee? This, this is a good question because this
has already come up and Joe Biden is completely mangled the answer. I believe that Joe Biden needs to fight back
when that issue comes up. If Joe Biden is the nominee and issues of
Hunter Biden’s job at the Ukrainian gas company are woven into the discussion about Trump
and impeachment. Other day I saw an interview that Joe Biden
gave where he was asked about it and he just, he seemed totally disoriented. He seemed dazed almost. How has he not come up with a strong answer
on this issue? He’s already looking weak about it. So a few thoughts that I have. Number one, Biden needs a strategy. I would sort of workshop it and there’s a
few different angles you could take. One angle you could take and say, Oh, hold
on a second, hold on a second.

Are “Undecided” Voters Just Dumb?


get to audience questions. I love this first one because it’s something
I’ve thought about for a very, very long time. Really, since I first became engaged in politics
when I was in high school. The question is, Hey David, how could anyone, it will be undecided about whether or not
they’re going to vote for Donald Trump. I also want to know how this is possible and
it seems to me that there’s a few different things going on. I mean, I actually want to know how is it
possible to really be a swing voter? Do they not know or pay attention to what
the parties and candidates represent? Are they voting based on personalities or
physical appearance or something else? It is never really made sense to me and I
think that there’s a couple of different things going on. First of all, a lot of these swing voters
are uninformed and I, I’m not saying this as a pejorative, we’ve seen, we’ve analyzed
in fact a lot of interviews with voters who, one was with a group of women who said, I
voted Obama in 2012 and then I voted Trump in 2016 they were clueless. I mean they didn’t know anything about what
was going on. So I think part of it is that they are unaware
of the facts and probably making decisions on the basis of rhetoric that they are not
then researching the truth of a, they are falling for the talking points of one versus
the other. I don’t think it’s particularly good for our
society. I mean, listen, I’d rather between Obama and
Trump, I’m voting for Obama as a society. I don’t know that we’re better off for people
falling for either candidates or either parties talking points in terms of what it means about
critical thinking and the ability to analyze assertions for yourself. But there, there is that element, first and
foremost, people who just don’t really know what’s going on. Um, there’s another thing though that I think
needs to be mentioned when we talk about, uh, the undecideds and the swing voters and
the independence, which is there is a sort of psychological pleasure that some people
get by being the enlightened centrist. And you see there are actually some, uh, media
people who have YouTube channels or whatever based on the idea that they are independent
and they are centrists and they will sometimes vote for Republicans and sometimes vote for
Democrats. Is it possible that someone’s ideology might
sometimes point to voting for a Republican and other times point to voting for a Democrat? Absolutely. It’s more common in very local races. It’s much less common. For example, at the Senate level, I’m sure
we can find examples, uh, where you have, you know, a very, uh, a Democrat that’s conservative
on issues you disagree with them on. And a Republican who is more liberal, for
example, on issues where you agree, so you might vote for the Republican. These are very rare cases. So I’ve met a lot of people who get some kind
of a satisfaction from sort of feeling as though they are above the peons who are on
the left or on the right, Democrats or Republicans. But I actually think it’s often they who are
the ignorant ones because they seem to, uh, uh, they, they seem to interpret centrism
as being more discerning and more fact based when it comes to deciding who to vote for
when in reality they’re missing that the differences between Republicans and Democrats left and
right. The differences are so obvious that to be
the enlightened centrist is the furthest thing from enlightened that you could possibly be. So I think that that’s also a part of it is
the combination of some people who are uninformed, some people who like the idea of just being
contrarian and saying, I’m, I’m a different thing. I’m not like you guys. And I’m not like you guys. I’m just the, I’m the centrist. I sometimes about this way. Sometimes the other way, everyone that I’ve
personally talked to, and this is merely anecdotal, when you ask them about their politics, their
politics actually make it very clear. You should always voting for a Democrat or
you should always have been voting for a Republican. You just don’t seem to realize it for yourself. Uh, it’s, it’s a sort of a sad commentary
about education, um, in the United States. You then also have voters who are just not
very politically engaged and they like to say, I vote for whoever is best in a particular
election. And very often that has nothing to do with
policy at all. It actually is personality and um, the way
that the person campaigns and sort of a feeling that someone gets judged that as you will
in terms of whether that’s a good thing or not a good thing. But yeah, I also don’t really understand,
I mean, listen, if today if someone is unsure whether they are voting for a Democrat or
Trump, I want to hear from you. Even the furthest right Democrat, which I
guess would be who’s furthest, right? I mean, is it like a Biden of the people that
are still in it? Biden followed by Buddha judge, I guess of
the people that are, that are still in the running or the furthest right. Of course, I’m voting for them over Donald
Trump. And I would be very interested to hear during
live calls from someone who might vote for Trump or might vote for a Democrat. I want to hear on what issue is it that is
keeping you from deciding

Trump Most Unpopular In 44 Years to Run for Re-Election


let’s talk now about that reelection. This is an interesting story that I want to
be careful about because when I talk about this, I don’t want to inadvertently make anybody
think that maybe they don’t need to go out and vote in November. Everybody needs to go out and vote in November. But it’s an interesting story. Nonetheless. Donald Trump is the most unpopular president
as of January one of their reelection year to seek reelection dating back all the way,
44 years to Gerald Ford seeking reelection in 1976 and Donald Trump’s still might win
despite that. Um, according to five 38 on January 1st just
a few days ago, Donald Trump’s approval rating was 42.6%. This might now be lower because of the Iran
stuff or it might be higher. We don’t really know, but that was the number
as of January 1st only Gerald Ford had a lower approval rating on January one of an election
year of reelection year who was pulling 39.3% on January 1st of 1976. Now, my memory when I was starting to research
this yesterday was that George W. Bush was very unpopular when running for reelection,
and indeed he was at 48.9% approval, but that was higher than Barack Obama at 45.7% Barack
Obama winning reelection very easily in 2012 so there’s a few important messages here. The most important one is if George W. Bush
was reelected with a 48.9% approval on January one of his reelection year, if Barack Obama
was reelected with 45.7% approval on January one of his reelection year, Trump can be reelected
at 42.6% especially in this hyper-partisan environment where Trump is likely to lose
the popular vote because of big deficits and large blue States like California and New
York. But to eke out winds in those few key States
that handed him the electoral college victory in 2016 so when you see this, it’s interesting. We don’t know how Trump’s approval will, will
move between now and election day. It means nothing about whether we need to
get out and vote. The answer is yes, we do. The other thing to remember is that November
approval need not be anything like January 1st approval. And in fact, if you look at the last 11 presidents
who ran for reelection of the 11 six saw their approval go down between January 1st and the
election five saw their approval go up between January 1st and the election. So for Trump, this means to get out of the
danger zone. He needs to try to get his approval closer
to 50%. For us, this means assume nothing, vote work. Every state, consider no state’s safe. I mean, we know California, Massachusetts
in New York, we know that they’re going blue, but work, the election work, every state. Trump was one of the most disliked and unpopular
candidates that ran, right? I mean, remember before he was elected, he
was extremely unpopular within the Republican, a, um, a primary and he still won. We are fighting some of the most malignantly
ignorant people in the country to try to remove this guy. Incumbency is a powerful thing. We need to fight it on all fronts. Public activism, get out the vote. We’ve gotta be fighting voter suppression
that is happening in many States and we are trying to fight it in many of those States,
fight gerrymandering, fight the foreign influence, which is of course going to be an issue once
again. And to put sort of like a final point on this,
despite Gerald Ford’s approval rating of only 39% back in 1976 he lost the popular vote
by only a million and a half votes. That’s about half of the margin that Trump
lost by in 2016. Put another way as unpopular as Gerald Ford
was in 1976, Trump lost the popular vote by twice as much in 2016 and still won the electoral
college. So the takeaway is don’t do anything that
would be influenced by thinking that it’s in the bag. I still believe that it is more than plausible
that Donald Trump gets himself reelected. Sometimes people, you know, when, whenever
I let, let’s actually address that because we are going to have a long, uh, election
cycle here of this. I, I’ve said many times, I am against Donald
Trump. I think there’s a great chance that Donald
Trump is defeated, but I think it’s perfectly plausible. And in some cases, if certain things go a
certain way, even likely that Donald Trump gets himself reelected. And when I say that, I’ll get emails from
people in the audience who say, David, you’re being really demoralizing by saying you think
Donald Trump could get reelected. Uh, I’m being realistic with you. And if anything, when you hear me say that
it shouldn’t demoralize you, it should make you commit to voting and to getting out the
vote. The idea that stating that the president could
realistically get himself reelected is the moralizing is the absolute wrong interpretation. The interpretation should be half of the country
doesn’t vote. Let’s go out and get people voting so that
we can win this thing. Let’s go to a break afterwards. Uh, CNBC put up the wrong pictures of Andrew
Yang and tool C Gabbert and a recent segment I want to talk with you about whether it is
ignorance or malice, and we will of course raise Hanlon’s razor. Always a great quote when we talk about ignorance
versus malice, your voicemails and many other things coming up. The David Pakman

2020 Campaign is Going to Be UGLY


let’s talk
about the 2020 election and what my approach is going to be because we’re quickly getting
into the 2020 election in earnest and this is going to be, I believe, an uglier election
than we have maybe ever seen in the modern political era. I’ll tell you how and why that’s going to
manifest the, let’s set it up. It’s January 2nd. The first votes in the democratic primary
are coming up in just a month. We have debate number seven for the democratic
candidates in a couple of weeks. Donald Trump is increasingly starting to campaign
for reelection in a serious manner. As serious as he does it. This is going to be an ugly election in ways
that may differ from past ugliness. So think back to the Clinton days, there was
an attempt, um, pretty late in the 20, in the 1992 election to attack bill Clinton by
publicizing a supposedly black loved child that bill Clinton had. If you watch the documentary, the war room,
which is an excellent documentary, you see bill Clinton’s advisers at the time, James
Carville, strategists, advisors, advisors, James Carville and George Stephanopoulos deal
with this possible smear about bill Clinton with a black loved child in real time. And that was very ugly in its own way. Um, in the 20 2008 campaign, the extreme racism
that we saw against Barack Obama. So there has been ugliness. 2016 was very ugly in its own way, but if
you thought that the Hillary has Parkinson’s conspiracy theories were ugly. If you thought Trump making fun of how candidates
look was ugly. If you thought Trump attacking Megan Kelly
about a bloody, you know what was ugly? Just wait until the 2020 election ramps up. There’s a really good piece by a conservative
Jonah Goldberg in the Los Angeles times about this, and even if you don’t agree with Jonah
Goldberg’s politics or his analysis of candidates, which I don’t, he astutely points out that
Donald Trump in 2016 had nothing to lose. He didn’t think he was going to be the nominee. He was already planning on what to do once
he lost the nomination, how to capitalize on maybe coming in a respectable second or
third place. Donald Trump is now the incumbent, and even
if he didn’t want this thing to begin with, he does not want to lose, and he is an impeached
president, which is driving him absolutely up a wall. We’ll talk about that a little bit later. Being president does not at all seem to have
matured. Donald Trump, if anything, he’s more childish
and unhinged than ever. And then you add to this a bunch of different
things add to this that um, he has this fragile cognitive state in which he finds himself
or an emotional imbalance or whatever it is. Something there adds on to the 2016 Trump
that we saw add to this, that in 2016, Donald Trump did not have the right wing media, uh,
supporting him all along. Remember that they eventually came to support
Donald Trump, but early in the 2016, uh, D a Republican primary really even in 2015,
Fox news was not with Donald Trump. A lot of that right wing apparatus that now
basically is with Trump, at least for now, they were not with them in 2016. So he has the benefit of that, which means
he will be able to get away with even more knowing that that right wing media apparatus
is going to defend them. Now that may change. I said it’s possible Fox would abandoned Trump
in 2020. Hypothetically. It doesn’t seem like it’s going to happen
unless that changes. We expect that the support is going to continue. This will further enable Donald Trump. Add to that Donald Trump’s friendship with
tabloid propagandists, David pepper pecker rather, which gives Trump more resources and
wherewithal to publish and push really horrible attacks on whoever is the eventual democratic
nominee. Over my vacation last week, I had the opportunity
to read almost all of Ronan Farrow’s book catch and kill, and that is another recipe
for a campaign that will reach levels of ugly that we have not seen before in his piece. Jonah Goldberg is already citing two early
examples of the type of campaign that this will be saying. Quote, first on Friday night, the president
retweeted and then deleted a post naming the whistleblower in the Ukraine affair. If candidate Trump had done something like
that, criticism from the right would have been deafening. Then on Sunday night at an event in Milford,
New Hampshire, the famously tactile Biden was greeted by a handful of protesters. Don’t touch kids. You pervert. One man who claims not to be a Trump supporter. Shouted a woman started a bar, a brief chat
of quid pro Joe. If you live in a swing state, it is going
to be even extra kooky, crazy ugly in 2020 if you live in a red state, a lot of that
ugliness is probably already infected like a virus. Many of your friends and neighbors and you’re
already in the thick of it and probably have been for the last year or a year and a half. One thing I’m looking at doing for myself,
for my own sanity, and I know that some people have noticed this, I’ve gotten emails from
people saying, David, I’m seeing you sort of pull back on social media. I’m looking at how much more can I pull back
on social media without losing touch with the audience, without losing touch with, you
know, the usefulness of those tools to an end up independent media show like this one
because it’s just too toxic. And I know lots of you have been feeling this
for awhile. Uh, I talked about this with Joe Rogan last
June when I was on his program. Let me know what you think. Let me know what you were planning on doing
when it comes to, it’s not just the ugliness that we’re expecting, but it’s also the even
bigger effect of these algorithmic echo chambers that are created and perpetuated on social
media. I want to hear from you. Leave a reply. If you’re watching on YouTube, send me a tweet
at deep Pacman. Otherwise, and make sure to follow both at
D Pacman and David Pakman show on Twitter. I want to hear from you. We’ll probably follow up tomorrow or early
next week about that.

Is Pelosi Withholding Impeachment a Genius Move?


Let’s go to our caller from the three zero
five area code color from three zero five. What’s on your mind today? Hey, David. Um, this is Esteban, uh, currently,
uh, in Atlanta, Georgia, but I reside in Orlando. All right. Um, so as you know, uh, Pelosi
has been withholding the articles of impeachment for a couple of weeks now. I think this is
really genius. I need to meet, you know, she might say that she’s doing this because she
wants, you know, uh, to guarantee your free trial. But I think it’s really clear that
she’s just trying to make us a word, a word of attrition. Um, you know, more and more
devastating information comes out with Trump. More and more scandals become public and you
know, he’s still serving as an impeached president. So, you know, Shirley just can’t look, uh,
right. You know, uh, emails just came out highlighting the fact that Trump was the one
who made the order to withhold the aid. And you know, Trump is, might argue, uh, that,
you know, the Democrats are scared. But I think that, you know, it’s really clear
that she’s doing this maybe to, I guess sort of muddy Trump’s name. Um, you know, a five
through eight poll just came out and support for a removal of office for Trump has reached
57%, which is the highest it’s ever been. So my question is, you know, what’s your take
on this? Uh, but more specifically, how long do you think the Democrats should continue
the strategy? And you think that all this, uh, bad information coming out on shrunk,
um, is going to weaken, uh, chances of winning. Okay, good. So a lot of good questions there.
I do think that in the immediate, the withholding of the articles of impeachment from the Senate
is a smart move. I said it before, a Donald Trump has an impeached president is becoming
increasingly erratic. You know, the problem is that he may become so erratic that he does
things that lead to the deaths of tons of people like starting a war with Iran because
he thinks it’ll help him get reelected. So that is definitely a concern. But so far the
articles of impeachment being withheld is a throat know, making Trump even more erratic.
You’re absolutely correct that we are learning more and more things. In fact, those emails
showing that Donald Trump was the one ordering the Ukrainian aid be withheld. Those are emails
that were denied to the house during the impeachment, uh, inquiry and investigation, which Mitch
McConnell also wanted to exclude from the Senate trial. And how do you justify excluding those from
the Senate trial at this point, given that they have gone public? So I agree with all
of that stuff. The concern I have is if you hold impeachment until after the November
of 2020 election, if you withhold the articles from the Senate until after the 2020 election,
I think that Trump may be, gets himself reelected, uh, because it doesn’t do any, the, the trial
doesn’t do any damage to Trump. At the same time, there’s a risk that if you start the
impeachment trial in July, in August, the Republican national convention is in August,
that Trump and Republicans are successfully able to paint Democrats as merely political
and calculating. And it could actually inspire people to get out there and vote for Trump
because he convinces them that he’s the victim and he’s a martyr. So I think in general,
this has been a good decision by Nancy Pelosi. I’m not sure of the end game, and I’m not
sure at what point it might backfire. Right. Uh, I remember, uh, watching, I don’t
remember what news kind was on, but, uh, there’s this guy named Island venturing. Apparently
he’s like a, he’s correctly predicted like every election since 1980. Oh, Alan Lichtman. Yeah, we’ve interviewed
him on the show. Yeah. Oh, really? Interesting. So he said
that there’s, um, there’s like 13 factors that, uh, sort of make up or decide, uh, the
chances of a president being elected or reelected. And, um, I think some, like they consisted
of like, you know, scandals, but one of the big ones was like in teaching, um, he said
that, uh, at least he’s, he claims that the only way Trump would lose the election is,
uh, if you know, the Democrats move forward with impeachment and it doesn’t matter, you
know, if he’s actually successfully removed from office, all that matters is, um, that,
you know, there’s, there’s obviously going to be a trial. Um, and I think that the more,
you know, the more Nancy withholds of these articles, I think the harder it is to deny
Trump, you know, an impeachment trial. I in the Senate. Um, which I think ultimately would
just, you know, um, increase his chances of losing the real life. You may be right. I’m not sure. And I know
Alan Lichtman is well respected and I, I T to me it’s, it’s less clear, but uh, we’re,
we’re, we’ve only got 10 months left, so we’re going to know pretty soon. Yeah. All right. Thank you so much for the call.
I appreciate it. Thank you so much. That is all the time I have today. Apologies to everybody.
I was not [inaudible] able to get to, but we have, we have all year
to take phone calls, so we’ll take a quick break and be back with more afterwards.

What Was Trump’s Worst Moment of 2019?


All right, let’s go back to the phones at
six one seven, eight three zero 47 50. Going to our caller from the three three one, one area code color from three, three one. What’s your name? Where are you calling from? Her name’s Curtis calling from Aurora. Hey Curtis, what’s up? And I’m much first a happy new year to you
and the guys over there doing good stuff, man. Patriot mail. Thanks a lot baby. Appreciate that. Um, my specific question was, so I’m in light
of the, uh, psychiatric nurse, left the voicemail for ya. And then some of the other great guests that
you’ve had on in regards to Trump, the narcissism neurologically possible psychological issues. My question is, um, you had a, you had a tweet
that asked a, if I’m not mistaken, what his worst moment was and, um, 2019, uh, I thought
dangle the single comments were the lowest and most deplorable comments ever. I was wondering what you thought his worst
was. I couldn’t tell. I mean, there’s just, there’s so many. It’s w I’m actually the wrong person even
to say what Donald Trump’s worst moment was in 2019 because I, I’ve become so desensitized
to the fact that we have this outrageous person in the oval office. So I, I actually am not well positioned to
tell you what the worst moment was. All right, understood. Understood. Yeah, it’s, well, I think he’s had a lot,
I think he’ll continue to have more just based on the, uh, individuals he has, but, um, those
specific people who speak to that, uh, that she had won, they always make for a great
and very enlightening shows. So that’s a good thing. So I appreciate that. Yeah. Listen, I mean, I, every time we talk about
the Trump cognitive decline or mental health stuff, there’s always a portion of the audience
that says, you know, it’s irresponsible to be talking about a person who you’ve not personally
met or who hasn’t been examined. It’s like, this is the problem that we can’t
actually figure out what’s going on because he won’t be examined and the behavior is so
erratic and examination would be appropriate. Uh, so what else can we do? We’re left in a very tough position. Very true. Very true. Well, I hope we have a good rest of this year,
sir, and thanks for everything you’re doing. All right, my friend. Thank you very much. Great to hear from you.

Light Bulb: Establishment Realizes Bernie Could Win


There was a very interesting shift that, uh,
happened right at the end of 2019, which I believe is now going to dictate a lot of the
narrative around the 2020 primary, uh, for the first quarter of 2020, certainly into
and through the first few primaries. And the shift is that both democratic party
insiders and even some in corporate media seem to have had like a light bulb go off
where they realized, wait a second, Bernie Sanders might actually win the democratic
nomination. Now this is not an analysis of whether Bernie
could be Trump. We’ve done that analysis. That’s a separate story. This is not an analysis of Bernie’s policy. This is not an analysis of whether Bernie
Sanders is a communist. He’s not a, we’ve done those analyses. This is about something else. We’ve talked about the Bernie blackout that
took place during much of 2019 in terms of covering Bernie Sanders campaign in a serious
manner by corporate media. And we’ve also talked about the attitude of
some in the DNC that Bernie simply can’t win. Others on the other hand, believed that Bernie
could win and were scared. So they were meeting about how to try to stop
Bernie. Famously, Pete Buddha judge was even included
in some of those early stop Bernie, uh, sort of meetings, um, that, uh, were, were taking
place about how can we make sure that we deny Bernie Sanders the nomination. But in the last few weeks of 2019 things changed. We’ll talk about the fundraising piece in
a little bit. Um, but a few other things went on. Number one. Part of it was Elizabeth Warren’s collapse
in the polls and she had nearly tied to Joe Biden for first place in the democratic primary
a few months ago. She has been on the decline since then. She’s dropped to third place. She’s lost almost half of her support from
her peak a few months ago, much more solidly behind Bernie, more than four points behind
as of this morning. Now, another part of it is not just Elizabeth
Warren’s decline. What we’ve seen if you look at polling, is
that many candidates were up and down and sometimes eventually out. Uh, while Bernie Sanders on the other hand
has basically been steady for months and months other than some very small shifts. So think back, Biden had that huge spike when
he formally announced up to 40%. Then he dropped, he leveled out every debate. He seems to lose some support because his
performances have been by and large, terrible. And then gained some of it back very erratic. Okay. Uh, Elizabeth Warren climbed, as I mentioned,
all the way up to almost hi Joe Biden. We really within the margin of error to tie
Joe Biden and then just started sinking, losing almost half of her support. Camilla Harris, she climbed all the way up
to 15 after one debate in which she had one of these kill shots against a, excuse me punching
my microphone against Joe Biden, but then she Relic relatively quickly fell. She ended her campaign a couple of weeks ago
as we told you who Leon Castro just announced that he’s ending his campaign. P booted judge had an upswing, didn’t really
seem believable, uh, to many people and he has settled back down basically to where he
was. And this entire time Bernie Sanders has been
holding steady, even his heart attack, only a relatively small bump. Now there’s two ways to interpret that and
I have no interest in, uh, uh, pulling the wool over your eyes. One way to interpret that is that Bernie Sanders
has a very solid base of support from which to build. And now the question is how does he build
it and we’ll talk about that. The other way to think about this is that
Bernie has basically maxed out that Bernie has hit his ceiling and barring some very
unlikely circumstances. It’s great for Bernie that he’s held roughly
the same level of support for awhile, but he’s incapable of growing that support. Those are two different opinions about this
and we’ll talk about that now. Just before the new year, you saw democratic
officials, party operatives, pundits, all starting to take Bernie Sanders more seriously. David Brock is a big democratic insider. He’s, he was a Hillary Clinton ally in 2016
he ran a pro Hillary pack in 2016 I was on a panel with him at Politiken back in 2018
he said, quote, it may have been inevitable that eventually you would have two candidates
representing each side of the ideological divide in the party. A lot of smart people I’ve talked to lately
think there’s a very good chance these two ended up being Biden and Sanders Sanders. Now, there is no denying that Bernie Sanders
is solidly not in first place. The more I look into things, the more I believe
the polls about Joe Biden and that Joe Biden is solidly in first place. I know that there are a lot of people in my
audience who don’t want to acknowledge that. Uh, what I have been increasingly realizing
and a call we got last week or earlier this week actually solidified that some of us are
so enmeshed in online politics where we say, where are these Biden supporters? I’m not coming across any of these Biden’s
supporters. It feels like we rarely come across them. Remember that call I got explaining for a
viewer explain that at Christmas, uh, all of their relatives are completely in for Biden. They are not voters that are part of the online
world that we exist in. And I believe this applies to millions of
Americans. So I do believe Joe Biden is in first place. I am increasingly thinking about how could
the Bernie Warren support be consolidated because I do believe that if it could, Joe
Biden would no longer be the front runner, but we’ll be talking more about that as far
as today’s conversation. Bernie Sanders solidly in second place being
taken more and more seriously by the establishment and by corporate media. The question now is what can push Bernie Sanders
over the top? If anything? It seems as though Elizabeth Warren going
by the polls does not have what it takes to go the distance, her support or eroding by
almost 50% over the last few months. The debates aren’t going to help Bernie. I mean it just, we’ve had a bunch now it’s
not moving Bernie support. I know that I still have people in my audience
who say, David, at the next debate, if Bernie does X, if Bernie does Y, he will take support
from Biden, Warren, whoever. It’s not going to happen in that way unless
someone seriously blunders during an upcoming debate, someone who has significant support
being Biden, Warren, maybe Buddha, judge, uh, but the further in you get, the less debates
move the needle. Unless someone really blunders, there is a
bigger chance that Bernie blunders and loses support. Then there is that in the debates. Bernie overtakes Joe Biden. That’s not about Bernie. Okay. Understand that this is just the way the debate
debates work. The further end you get, the more candidates
are known, the more their positions are known. The the smaller, the possibility of making
large gains from the debates becomes so it becomes a mathematical question. It’s also a political question. How can support move to Bernie if that’s where
you want to see the support move? What can you do? I don’t know the answer. Warren falling doesn’t seem to help. She’s lost almost half her support in the
last few months and Bernie’s basically even let me know your thoughts. What could change the balance towards Bernie
from where we are today? A big piece of evaluating how a candidate
is doing is fundraising and our current system, and I want to talk about that next

Does No One Care That Trump is Mentally Ill?


Welcome to the show. It is a new year and I want to talk just a
little bit about my plan for 2020 not specifically about election coverage. We’ll talk about that later, but, but a little
more generally about what’s going on in American political society. One of the goals that I have for 2020 for
the show is to do everything I can to reverse the Hypernormalization of radical unhinged
behavior and actions. And it’s, it’s been really tough. I mean we’ve talked about this before and
sometimes people will call in about it. We’ve experienced all of us a sort of desensitization
and normalization under Donald Trump where every norm, countless ethics rules, the way
we talk about politics, the way we do diplomacy, the way we interact with other world leaders
and countries, it’s all gone out the window. And between the scandal, fatigue and being
desensitized, we all to a degree start to see crazy stuff as less crazy than we would
have in years past or even six months ago. So today I want to talk about just a real
issue and I want to do it carefully. And that issue is how do more people not care
that the president of the United States is mentally unwell. Or we can use the term mentally ill and I
want to be careful. I don’t want to stigmatize mental illness
because it doesn’t deserve to be stigmatized. I don’t want to laugh at mental illness because
it’s not a laughing matter. Nor do I want to conflate things that shouldn’t
be conflated. So for example, being ignorant about politics
and economics as our president is, is not mental illness. It’s not mental instability. It’s two different things. Being a cheater in relationships and golf
and business is not mental illness. Being an immoral person is not mental illness. Lacking empathy is not mental illness, but
these things can be connected to mental illness. And the fact that too many people seem uninterested
in recognizing that Donald Trump is mentally unwell is a very bad sign for society. There’s a recent piece in salon that I encourage
you to read, uh, by Chauncey de Vega, where Chauncey says, six societies normalize the
abberant and abhorrent behavior of their leaders and other elites. That behavior in turn becomes a pathology
of sorts, which infects the general public. This has infected Trumpists. Many of them, not all, some of them have ulterior
motives. We’re hearing regularly from the mental health
community more and more about this man who is in charge of the country. We’ve heard from psychiatry professor, dr
John Gartner on the program multiple times, who told us the various conditions that Donald
Trump may have. These are not jokes. This is not making fun. This is not being hyperbolic. This is a red alert. We have a mentally ill president, psychiatry
professor, dr bandy, Lee, uh, from Yale said recently that Nancy Pelosi could have Donald
Trump and voluntarily evaluated because he may be a threat to public safety. Now, whether she actually can do it or not,
and whether Trump would would submit to that, it’s unlikely. But this is an argument that another mental
health professional is making. And immediately bandy Lee was excoriated by
the Trumpist. Right? How dare we inquire about the mental health
of the president. We then have psychiatrist, Justin Frank who
says Trump is terrified, angry, and extremely dangerous. And that conflict quote gives him life. There have been other leading mental health
professionals who have described Donald Trump as psychotic. Now psychotic. We’ve got to be careful with this stuff. Psychotic is often used colloquially in society
to mean a wacky or eccentric or quirky person. Mental health professionals are using the
term medically. Psychosis is a severe mental disorder in which
thought and emotions are so impaired. That contact is lost with external reality. That is in line with much of what the people
around Donald Trump had been reporting is going on. Chauncey de Vega goes on to write in his salon
piece that we are seeing now, something that relates to what philosopher Henry [inaudible]
described as a dis imagination machine. This is a really important concept. The dissemination machine is the apparatus
that includes images, institutions, discourse, media, political movements, parties. It prevents people from properly bearing witness
to phenomena and to remembering those phenomena in a way that applies critical thinking and
a critique. It prevents people from being critically informed. Even the ways in which we are talking about
Donald Trump’s behavior sort of is doing this. I’ll give you an example. When we say Trump’s behavior is unreal, there’s
an implied meaning, which is we mean that it’s outrageous behavior. We mean that it’s unacceptable behavior that
it has to be stopped. But when we use the word unreal, it also implies
it’s not real. It’s not really happening the way that it
appears to be. And Donald Trump has pushed this. Remember Donald Trump said, what you are seeing
and reading is not actually happening. It’s not actually real. So Chauncey de Vega’s conclusion is that when
we talk about is fascism coming, is totality, totalitarianism, whatever. We won’t know it because it will become the
new normal. Very slowly. Just like having a mentally ill president
increasingly has become the norm. Many Republicans don’t care because they’ve
got, they’ve got their judges in, they’re getting their nominations installed, they’re
getting stuff done while the focus is on Donald Trump. They just pretend that Donald Trump is okay,
but for too many people, they have actually fallen into this normalization. 2020 is going to be a real test for the country. I’m going to avoid, uh, I’m going to try to
do my part better said to avoid the continued normalization of what is mentally ill behavior. Without conflating that with just an ignorant
president with an immoral president, with an unethical president, these are different
issues. We are not going to stigmatize mental illness,
but at a certain point when this number of mental health professionals are sounding the
alarm and half the country seems not to care or simply to refuse to see reality, it is
starting to infect the country exactly the way that Chauncey de Vega writes in salon. We’re going to link to that piece in the description
for the YouTube clip for this story. And I want to hear from you about this. Uh, let’s talk a little bit now about moving on from in general, my
goal in in 2020, uh,

Hey Prickless, Trump Will Win “Unanimously”


we have a voicemail number. That number is two one nine two David P here
is a voicemail to wrap up the year. So riddled with crazy that I don’t even know
where to start. Take a listen. A prickling. How’s you in the quirky Clinton lowers and
the black Muslim Obama overs? You know, I’ll tell you, you’re going to start
a civil war II. People pick on Trump. It’s going to win unanimously. A second term close. He doesn’t have a case. That’s why she goes, isn’t going to bring
the articles over to the Senate. Also, you know, you pick on everything. If it was Obama, the Muslim or crooked Clinton
or Biden, you don’t say anything about him. Don’t criticize them. They’re perfect. They’re Jesus reincarnated. You know, why don’t you pick on Lonnie and
next what size, what kind of tampon does she use? And what about the skid marks and Barron’s
Paty way you people are idiots. You know, you’re a communist in plain English,
and the capitalism is gonna win. And uh, you know, why don’t you go back to
South America where you came from? You go, where’s your little buddy, Patty? Uh, he’s not satisfying your wisdom anymore, right? So, listen, we’re used to the homophobia. We’re, we’re used to all of that stuff. Uh, I’ve heard, go back to South America many
times. Remember I am a citizen of the United States. Uh, but also, you know that we don’t criticize
Democrats and we criticize Democrats all the time. And in fact, I was just, I was just criticized
myself for being critical of the way that some Democrats are couching certain political
issues. Uh, I, I love that he says Trump’s going to
win unanimously. That I don’t know that they know that this
person knows what that means. Does unanimous mean that Trump’s going to
win every state? Is Trump going to win any, every vote? What does that mean unanimously? Uh, and then again, this idea that I’m a communist,
first of all, uh, that’s not true. And secondly, the idea that the threat is
from communism in the United States is laughable. There is no threat from communism in the sense
that there is no clamoring to turn the United States into a communist, uh, state reminiscent
of others that we have seen in history. So this is who we’re fighting since this is
the last voicemail is 2019. Here’s my message that I attached to it. We can’t convince those people to see reason
and come to our side. So let’s not try. Let’s not waste our time. 2020 starts tomorrow. Let’s focus on finding the half of the country
that doesn’t vote and getting the people that already agree with us to understand the importance
of getting out and casting a ballot in 2020 that’s it for today. Pat’s got the bonus show today. I will be back with you on January 2nd to
kick off the David Pakman show, the David Pakman [email protected]

The Future of the United States


All right. Welcome to the program. We are back from vacation. We’ll have a lot of new stuff happening for
you this year and where I want to start today is I want
to talk about the future of the United States, but not, I mean the Trump is part of it, but
that’s not really what this story is about. I know that now when we talk about the future
of the country, very often it relates to Donald Trump. Has Donald Trump irreparably done a, B or
C or how will we recover from Def that Donald Trump has done? That’s not really what this is about. This is, this is a bigger picture story, but
importantly, it’s also not about predicting the future in any particular sense. Humans are notoriously bad at predicting the
future. It’s not just economists. I’m talking about, we’ve talked about how
economists are bad at predicting the future of the economy, but with change happening
more and more quickly, predictions about what humanity will be like or what the United States
will be like in 50 years. In a hundred years, in 500 years, it’s increasingly
pointless to do that. Type of thing. Any predictions about this will definitely
be, or this will never be, these are not useful predictions to make. So for example, when Donald Trump said during
his last state of the union address that the United States will never be a communist country
and, or maybe he used the word socialist and everybody cheer, Republicans cheered. Other than that being a really ignorant thing
to say because there’s really no risk of that happening in the immediate, like the idea
that the country is on the verge of becoming a socialist country. That’s not the case to say something will
never happen. Makes very little sense because it’s 500 years
is a long time. A hundred years is a long time. Fair enough. I think we understand that what this story
is about is about the future of the American political system. Now, there is no doubt that many of us believe
elements of the current system are unstable and precarious and at some point it could
be natural to think the system will collapse or evolve and many people feel that there
is an inevitability to that. So I’ll give you some specific examples. Marxists have long held that eventually the
proletariat is going to revolt against the bourgeoisie. In capitalist countries like the United States,
the system will collapse and in its place will be installed a Marxist system of government. Okay? That’s an example of a Marxist idea of the
inevitability of what will be the future political system. Free market capitalists on the hand who believe
that the ideas of social democracy are fraught, untenable, uh, bad ideas. The free market capitalists often imagine
that as those ideas fail, be it single payer health care or whatever, society will move
more and more in the direction of total free market capitalism. More generally, history has shown us that
nation States often don’t last forever, right? Whether we’re talking about the fall of Rome
or the Ottoman empire or there are many other examples, and it is true. A country can be destroyed by war. A country can be taken over, it can be annexed,
it can be divided up into multiple smaller countries as we saw happen during the 1990s
in Europe, for example. But it’s important for any good activists
to understand that it’s called the status quo for a reason and things can basically
remain as they are and this is actually a desired outcome. This is a goal for many elements of society
that wield influence, and I’ll explain what I mean because this is really important stuff
to understand. We look at healthcare in the United States
and we look at medical bankruptcy, the increased cost of health insurance, the terrible plans
that costs, you know, 500 bucks a month for a $10,000 per year deductible or whatever,
and we think this can’t go on forever. Like eventually this has to collapse, but
maybe not. There are very powerful interests that want
the system to basically remain this way, but they recognize that it’s not sustainable indefinitely. In other words, we say this is not indefinitely
sustainable. Those who want the current system also recognize
it’s not indefinitely sustainable if the trajectory continues and they can choose to do just enough
to keep basically the same system going. I’ll give you another example. We look at the cost of college, which has
skyrocketed some colleges costing 60 70 $80,000 a year. Maybe my numbers are outdated and it’s even
more. We project out that growth and we say, this
can’t go on. This is a system that’s going to implode on
itself because college will soon cost hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. People won’t be able to afford it, or they’ll
take out student loans, which they will never be able to pay because wages are not increasing
in parallel with the cost of college, so it’ll collapse and we’ll start over hopefully with
something better or the powers that be, which include colleges, student lending, institutions
and others can tweak what we have put in some subsidies, raise wages a little bit to make
expensive college degrees just slightly more worth it to basically perpetuate the system
that we have now have huge profits for lenders, schools and students who get degrees with
which they can’t really get ahead and take decades to pay the loans off if they ever
are able to pay them off. The entire point here is the assumption that
an unsustainable system will collapse, that then we can change into something we like
ignores that the status quo is not only appealing to many systems of power, but that it will
be a great motivator to them to fix little things to avoid the collapse, just to perpetuate
the status quo. This is how they will throw bones to the masses
every once in a while. This is part of the same system that prevents
people from being able to afford really getting out there and protesting big time for massive
systemic change. The system works to keep people so day to
day when it comes to their salaries that they can’t take time off to go and protest, but
then if things get too hot, they will throw us a bone here or there. Things can basically stay the same or close
to it for a long time. And as I’ve said before, it’s always harder
to win when you want to do stuff and the other side wants to keep things the same. But knowing this better arms us to be activists
we’re working against, we’re working against, and my pronunciation was a little bit incorrect
there. We’re working against not just people who
want to change things for the worse for the most number of people, but there are huge
forces that we are fighting that merely want to tweak the edges to basically maintain the
status quo. That includes corporate powers and it includes
moneyed interests, so understand that the collapse is not inevitable because a strategy
is doing just enough to avoid the collapse, but basically perpetuate the status quo and
a big part of this is economics and we’re going to dig into some economics next.