Speaker 1: Very pleased to be joined on this episode of The
Speaker 1: Warning podcast by the host of The David Pacman Show,
Speaker 1: David Pacman himself.
Speaker 2: This is the Warning.
Speaker 1: Today is the vice presidential debate. It is the last
Speaker 1: major event contact, if you will, between the two sides
Speaker 1: before the final month of the campaign. We wait for
Speaker 1: the October surprise, whatever that may be. But until then,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of campaigning to do.
Speaker 2: David, welcome, Thank you.
Speaker 1: What are you looking for tonight as we get ready
Speaker 1: for this vice presidential debate?
Speaker 3: A couple of things I'm interested in seeing tonight. Number one,
Speaker 3: as far as Jade Vance goes, is he going to
Speaker 3: show up and kind of be the alternative to Trump
Speaker 3: in the sense of going towards policy, going away from
Speaker 3: personal attacks, or is he going to join Trump in
Speaker 3: the at kind of haphazard, a brazen style that includes
Speaker 3: more recently saying Kamala Harris is mentally disabled, et cetera. Like.
Speaker 4: In other words, does jd.
Speaker 3: Vance want to show up and say I am Trump
Speaker 3: plus one, or if you don't like Trump's politics, I'll
Speaker 3: do the buttoned up policy discussion. That's one thing I'm
Speaker 3: interested in seeing. Number Two, I expect that JD. Vance
Speaker 3: will try to make his opposition to Harris Walls partially
Speaker 3: along the lines of we're against the elites, We're against
Speaker 3: these East Coast liberals, et cetera. And of course Tim
Speaker 3: Walls is not that, and so I'm very curious whether
Speaker 3: Tim Walls, as the Midwestern I know how to fix
Speaker 3: a clutch guy, is going to be able to repel
Speaker 3: that from JD. Vans and actually show listen Vance is
Speaker 3: more of that than I am, for sure, and so
Speaker 3: I'm interested in seeing that dynamic because they they have
Speaker 3: a hammer. Vance has a hammer, which is we are
Speaker 3: not like these coastal elites. Tim Walls is not one
Speaker 3: of those coastal elites. So I'm interested to see kind
Speaker 3: of how that dynamic plays out.
Speaker 1: When you think about this debate, do you think that JD.
Speaker 1: Vance is going to come out hard on Waltz's military record.
Speaker 3: I think that that's very risky and that he almost
Speaker 3: certainly will not, because you know, Rolling Stone has a
Speaker 3: peace out. Now about turns out jd lied about the
Speaker 3: poor upbringing. It was pretty middle class. There was substance abuse,
Speaker 3: but it was pretty middle class. JD. Vance in his
Speaker 3: book describes his time in the military doesn't lie about
Speaker 3: having seen combat, but he describes it in relatively more
Speaker 3: dramatic terms than what he's more recently acknowledged. So I
Speaker 3: think there's risk to JD that that gets turned around
Speaker 3: on him as well.
Speaker 1: When you think about his liabilities your governor Walls coming
Speaker 1: into this debate, you are debating somebody who I think
Speaker 1: made one of the most astonishing concessions of my thirty
Speaker 1: years working in politics, which he says in an interview
Speaker 1: with Dana Bash, Hey, it's okay if we make up
Speaker 1: the story about the Haitians eating the cats eating the
Speaker 1: dogs in this town because the town was ignored by
Speaker 1: the national media. The town has a problem. Even though
Speaker 1: the lie is a lie and it's sensational. Now the
Speaker 1: national media is focused on the town.
Speaker 2: How do you.
Speaker 1: Engage somebody who said that, what's the right approach into that?
Speaker 1: If you are advising Walls, or even from your perch
Speaker 1: just analyzing this this tonight, what are you looking for there?
Speaker 1: This is certainly going to be front and center in
Speaker 1: the debate tonight.
Speaker 4: The first thing is I would go in.
Speaker 3: You know, I sometimes get calls from people in my
Speaker 3: audience who say, you know, if if Kamala Harris just
Speaker 3: said X, or if Tim Walls just said why, they'd
Speaker 3: have no retort.
Speaker 4: They'd be dead in the water.
Speaker 3: We've got them, and I always explained, you might think that,
Speaker 3: but they have a plan, they have the you know
Speaker 3: you're not going to catch them off guard. So, first
Speaker 3: of all, the approach from Vance is going to be
Speaker 3: when I talked about creating stories, I didn't mean I
Speaker 3: fabricate facts. What I mean is there's something happening that
Speaker 3: the media is not covering, and therefore I'm going to
Speaker 3: create more interesting language or insist on talking about it
Speaker 3: so that media stories are created. It's splitting hairs. But
Speaker 3: his argument is going to be I didn't make up
Speaker 3: the facts. I am creating a media story around something
Speaker 3: that's being ignored, now, don't I don't believe that that
Speaker 3: comports with the facts, obviously, but he'll be prepared to
Speaker 3: splice hairs.
Speaker 4: I think for Walls, the.
Speaker 3: Key is to know exactly how to bring it up
Speaker 3: in the way that in the debate against Trump, Kamala
Speaker 3: Harris she had her prepared moment about bored people leaving
Speaker 3: Trump's rallies.
Speaker 4: It was rehearsed. She knew she was going to do it.
Speaker 3: She had it in her pocket, and it was just
Speaker 3: about finding the right moment to do it. And it
Speaker 3: worked so well it sent Trump for a loop, wildly
Speaker 3: triggering him, and he never recovered in the debate for walls,
Speaker 3: it's knowing that Vance is going to be ready to
Speaker 3: split hairs in this way. About creating stories doesn't mean
Speaker 3: you make up the facts. It means you force the
Speaker 3: corporate media to be accountable or whatever. He needs to
Speaker 3: know the exact right. I mean, I would be rehearsing
Speaker 3: exactly how to bring it up and to make a
Speaker 3: point of you can't believe anything this guy says. He
Speaker 3: went on National TV and with a straight face, looked
Speaker 3: at Dana Bash and said, I'm going to keep creating
Speaker 3: these stories and just know when to deploy it.
Speaker 4: That's the key.
Speaker 2: You think Wallas is going to call him a weirdo
Speaker 2: to his face.
Speaker 3: I think he probably will at some point in the debate. Yeah,
Speaker 3: and I and I to be honest, I hope he does,
Speaker 3: because it doesn't really seem to have I'd be curious
Speaker 3: what you think, but I don't think there's a downside
Speaker 3: to him deploying that either, because it seems to be
Speaker 3: working really well.
Speaker 1: Yeah, no doubt, I think he is. I think it's
Speaker 1: going to be a big moment, and if he does
Speaker 1: it the right way, it's gonna be a it's gonna
Speaker 1: be a tough punch. I'm close friends with Tim Ryan,
Speaker 1: and Tim Ryan of course ran against Jadie Vance and
Speaker 1: Vance wins that race by five points or so and
Speaker 1: the top of the ticket loses by twenty six points,
Speaker 1: which made it very very difficult for Tim Ryan. But
Speaker 1: Tim mauled jd Vance in the debate. He was extremely aggressive,
Speaker 1: held him to an account, and I imagine that's how
Speaker 1: Walls is going to come out of the come out
Speaker 1: of the gate today. He's gonna he's gonna come out
Speaker 1: like a like a football team, very very aggressively in
Speaker 1: the in the first minutes after him trying to rattle
Speaker 1: Jade Vance, who doesn't seem to do very well uh
Speaker 1: in these interviews when he's questioned, Uh, he gets rattled
Speaker 1: pretty easy. He contradicts himself, uh pretty often. And so
Speaker 1: it's going to be an interesting debate. I prepped was
Speaker 1: one of the people who prepedic Cheney back in the
Speaker 1: day against John Edwards, and that was a vice presidential
Speaker 1: debate that was devastating in that when you walked out,
Speaker 1: you were just say, wow, that's wow. Right, you know,
Speaker 1: one person just clearly won the debate. And and that's
Speaker 1: what I think Wallas is going to be going for
Speaker 1: for here tonight. He's gonna you know, particularly, you don't
Speaker 1: want to take it. You have you have competition right
Speaker 1: between the principles. You know, she crushed Donald Trump in
Speaker 1: the in the debate. Now it's his turn. Really after
Speaker 1: the convention, speed try. The vice presidential candidate has only
Speaker 1: one more official thing to do, and this is it,
Speaker 1: and so you want to do really well at it.
Speaker 1: Dick Cheney prepared for this debate one night for over
Speaker 1: a year, five to six hours every Sunday religiously of prep, rehearsal, practice,
Speaker 1: getting ready for this, for this debate. So you know,
Speaker 1: Wall certainly didn't have that amount of time and prep.
Speaker 1: But since he's been selected, you know, if you're going
Speaker 1: to be the VP nominee, you have this coming right.
Speaker 1: This is you know, it's like a wedding, right, You're
Speaker 1: gonna have the rehearsal dinner, You're going to have the
Speaker 1: you're gonna have the ceremony, you're gonna have the reception
Speaker 1: after and this is part of that.
Speaker 2: This is part of that process for him.
Speaker 3: So in your experience, is it considered that there's an
Speaker 3: asymmetrical risk to the VP debate that if you do well,
Speaker 3: the upside is smaller or is that It seems to
Speaker 3: me that that would be the case, But I don't
Speaker 3: know that.
Speaker 2: Well.
Speaker 1: The VP debate has served in some ways as a
Speaker 1: circuit breaker, right. One of the things that's really unique
Speaker 1: about this presidential cycle is the total disruption of the
Speaker 1: fall campaign because of the absence of four debates, three
Speaker 1: presidential and one vice presidential. So if you go back
Speaker 1: in that Bush debate, Bush does terrible in the first debate.
Speaker 1: The VP debate is the second debate. It's like a
Speaker 1: circuit breaker, right, because Cheney wins that debate, it calms
Speaker 1: the waters coming into the rematch, and it's like a
Speaker 1: baseball game, right, it's the best of three. Even in
Speaker 1: a presidential debate, if it's Romney against Obama and incumbon presidents, clearly,
Speaker 1: UH have an issue when it comes to prepping for
Speaker 1: the debate because they all do very, very poorly in
Speaker 1: the in the first outing but but even in a
Speaker 1: debate where the presidential candidate completely boots, it's just like
Speaker 1: a sporting event where it's a it's a best of
Speaker 1: three series, they're gonna get two more shots. So the
Speaker 1: vice presidential debate, if it went completely off the rails
Speaker 1: and it became a distraction for the presidential campaign, meaning
Speaker 1: for the for the for the presidential nominee, I think
Speaker 1: that's the most you can you can hope for, generally speaking,
Speaker 1: even debates like the Dan Quaile debate, which was one
Speaker 1: of the most devastating moments, if not the most in
Speaker 1: a in a in a national debate, where Lloyd Benson
Speaker 1: looks at him and says, you.
Speaker 2: Know, I knew Jack Kennedy. You know Jack Kennedy, and.
Speaker 1: He looks so warly wounded by it all. Even that,
Speaker 1: in the end is not something that factors in very
Speaker 1: much in the voting. Did decision as a singular aspect
Speaker 1: in the choice.
Speaker 3: That makes a lot of sense, And I think with
Speaker 3: Trump there's another aspect to it, which is Trump doesn't
Speaker 3: want to be embarrassed by Vance, but he also doesn't
Speaker 3: want to be outdone or outshined by JD.
Speaker 4: Vance, And so Vance.
Speaker 3: Also needs to do well, as Trump would see it,
Speaker 3: without doing well in a way that now Trump feels
Speaker 3: like he's being upstaged because of his ego and the
Speaker 3: personality driven aspects of how Trump functions. So needless to say,
Speaker 3: I don't envy jd Vance's position, although I hope that
Speaker 3: he does not do well.
Speaker 1: You could see the look on Trump's face. I mean
Speaker 1: Trump was out there during the convention evaluating everybody.
Speaker 2: He was judging them.
Speaker 1: I mean he was like he was like the guy
Speaker 1: from the right up in the up in the stage
Speaker 1: with his with his with his clipboard. Jd Vance did
Speaker 1: not please Trump during his convention speech. If you have
Speaker 1: any understanding of like basic human body language and any
Speaker 1: any any registerable emotional intelligence, the weird clapping, you know,
Speaker 1: the stepping back and the impromptus, so Trump will be
Speaker 1: judging him. Uh, Trump wants to see proverbial blood on
Speaker 1: the floor, and I think he's unlikely to get it.
Speaker 1: There's no way Trump is happy with his performance. It's
Speaker 1: inconceivable that he would. And so if after this debate,
Speaker 1: even in the circumstance you're talking about, jd Vance quits
Speaker 1: himself pretty well, all the opposition groups that go out.
Speaker 2: There and say that JD.
Speaker 1: Vance is better than Trump, is the better mag the
Speaker 1: leader that has the ability to destabilize Trump as well.
Speaker 1: In the final thirty days, you know when Trump is
Speaker 1: coming into a moment where you know, if you look
Speaker 1: at what he said it over the weekend, and I
Speaker 1: want to talk to you about this, the rhetoric is
Speaker 1: getting very very dark.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and maybe before we moved to that, though, one
Speaker 3: other thing I wanted to mention was in the debate. Obviously,
Speaker 3: the economy and inflation is going to come up, and JD.
Speaker 3: Vans and Trump have been talking kind of in absolute terms.
Speaker 3: Gas is expensive, eggs are expensive, groceries are expensive, et cetera.
Speaker 3: I'm really curious how Tim Walls will prepare to hit
Speaker 3: that head on in a way that will make sense
Speaker 3: to a viewing public that may not follow economics closely,
Speaker 3: because there's a belief among many that what we need
Speaker 3: is prices to quote go down in absolute ters, and
Speaker 3: of course that's quite rare in most Western developed economies
Speaker 3: and can set off a deflationary spiral. And while the
Speaker 3: intuitive sense would be prices going down is good. It
Speaker 3: means I can buy more stuff when you understand that
Speaker 3: that means people wait to make purchases because they expect
Speaker 3: prices to be lower, which slows down the economy, which
Speaker 3: lead to layoffs. You have to have some way to
Speaker 3: push back against JD Vance just coming in and talking
Speaker 3: about inflation, inflation, inflation that actually will resonate with the
Speaker 3: public and make sense. And I don't know what that
Speaker 3: would be, but I assumed Tim Wallace's people around him
Speaker 3: who will get him ready to deal with that issue
Speaker 3: in a way that's clear.
Speaker 1: There's no question that on the question of the economy
Speaker 1: that Kim Wallash is the guy on the Democratic side
Speaker 1: that everybody is hoping can talk to people in a
Speaker 1: way that relates to them, that they're capable of understanding
Speaker 1: that he's a very middle class guy and that he
Speaker 1: has that connection.
Speaker 2: No, without a douption, no question about that.
Speaker 1: You know that that he's the he's probably you know
Speaker 1: Tim Wallas is a teacher. Is he able to teach
Speaker 1: basic economics?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 1: And that's always part of a that's always part of
Speaker 1: a campaign.
Speaker 2: Who can teach economics the best. When we think.
Speaker 1: About media and we think about old media new media,
Speaker 1: we think about the success of your show. You look
Speaker 1: at media's story in the news. Uh Jota leaving the
Speaker 1: Today Show twenty million dollar contract. The show size has
Speaker 1: been halved in recent years, choosing to retire, you know,
Speaker 1: But all of this era of the twenty million dollars salaries,
Speaker 1: it's all over in media. Word that really, you know,
Speaker 1: was not ubiquitous even a couple of years ago, with
Speaker 1: corporate media, and now everyone talks about corporate media, even
Speaker 1: replacing the term legacy legacy media. But I want to
Speaker 1: talk about an aesthetic of media and how you see
Speaker 1: it that drives me crazy in how things are covered
Speaker 1: and viewed, and get your thoughts on it. So I'm
Speaker 1: watching I'm watching CNN and the Sunday shows, and I'm
Speaker 1: watching Manu Raju ask Kevin McCarthy or Tom Emmer. I
Speaker 1: forget which one, but it was Kevin McCarthy and Tom
Speaker 1: Emmer were both being grilled and the question was very predictably,
Speaker 1: what do you have to say about Trump calling the
Speaker 1: vice president mentally disabled? Do you agree with that? And
Speaker 1: when I step back from it, of course they agree
Speaker 1: with it. They support him fully, They supported him through
Speaker 1: an insurrection. They agree with everything he says and does.
Speaker 1: And if they didn't, they wouldn't be sitting there on
Speaker 1: Sunday morning as they have been, not just in twenty four,
Speaker 1: but in twenty twenty three, twenty twenty two, twenty one,
Speaker 1: twenty nineteen, eighteen, seventeen, and sixteen. And so my question is,
Speaker 1: coming into this final month, we have a corporate media,
Speaker 1: if you will, that Tree teach Day as an episodic
Speaker 1: event in a television series, as if what happens today
Speaker 1: is disconnected completely from what's going to happen tomorrow and
Speaker 1: what happened yesterday and the day before, or and the
Speaker 1: day and the day before. So when I watch Tom
Speaker 1: Emmer or I watch Kevin McCarthy and they're asked a question,
Speaker 1: and the question is are you are you going to
Speaker 1: rebuke them for saying this? And the answer is always
Speaker 1: going to be no, they won't, and they'll squirm, they'll
Speaker 1: they'll do whatever. The coming question is who won the election?
Speaker 1: And we're about thirty five days out. I hate making predictions,
Speaker 1: but I'm gonna make one. I think that the race
Speaker 1: is going to break in Harris's direction right in the
Speaker 1: next twenty days or so, and that on election night
Speaker 1: we're gonna have a pretty clear picture of who's gonna
Speaker 1: win the election by midnight. I don't think it will
Speaker 1: be a be a late night. That's how it feels
Speaker 1: to me. I could be wrong. Later in October than today,
Speaker 1: I said that Hillary Clinton looked like she was trending
Speaker 1: to four hundred electoral votes, and in that moment she was.
Speaker 2: That being said.
Speaker 1: Harris, except for one thing, and we'll talk about that
Speaker 1: seems to me to be on a good trajectory. So
Speaker 1: envisioning that which seems to me much more likely than
Speaker 1: the moment that we remember from twenty sixteen, and I
Speaker 1: was on set for it, I think that it's more
Speaker 1: likely that she wins the race. And in that instant
Speaker 1: you'll start with the conspiracy of lies, and in advance
Speaker 1: you know all of the people who will be involved
Speaker 1: in it, because there are all the people on it,
Speaker 1: all the people who have been involved in it, who
Speaker 1: are yes every week whether they'll disavow this or that
Speaker 1: that Trump did or said, up to and including the
Speaker 1: overthrower of the government, and the answer never changes. Do
Speaker 1: you get frustrated when you watch that, when you see that,
Speaker 1: when you see the tediousness of the questioning in the
Speaker 1: corporate media about evans that at this point have the
Speaker 1: rhythmic quality of the rising of the sun in the
Speaker 1: east every.
Speaker 2: In the morning. I mean, how do you see in
Speaker 2: process all of that.
Speaker 3: I do share the frustration. I just am less convinced.
Speaker 3: You know. You started by saying, of course they don't
Speaker 3: disavow it because of course they agree with it. I
Speaker 3: actually think it's worse. I think it's of course they
Speaker 3: don't disavow it because even though they obviously personally disagree
Speaker 3: with it, in many cases, they've decided that in their
Speaker 3: public facing characters, they will not wrong or across Donald Trump.
Speaker 3: So I think it's worse. Like, on one hand, it's
Speaker 3: people who have been convinced by Trump and love all
Speaker 3: of it, including she's mentally disabled, so of course they
Speaker 3: don't disavow it. Concurrent with that, you have this guy's
Speaker 3: despicable and terrible. He's lost everything or forced us to
Speaker 3: underperform everywhere since twenty eighteen. But for as long as
Speaker 3: he controls the Republican Party, even if I'm part of
Speaker 3: why he controls it, I am not going to publicly
Speaker 3: cross him. So I actually don't believe that. McCarthy and
Speaker 3: Tom Emmer you mentioned also Lindsey Graham was interviewed about
Speaker 3: the same thing, and he said, well, I prefer to
Speaker 3: talk about issues. The weakest response you could have. I
Speaker 3: actually think they don't agree with it, but they realize
Speaker 3: until he doesn't, he has control of the Republican Party,
Speaker 3: and if they don't want to be on the outs
Speaker 3: with Democrats and on the outs with Trump, they kind
Speaker 3: of have to just go along with it. Now, I
Speaker 3: want to say one other thing about the election night
Speaker 3: scenario you mentioned. I do think the most likely scenario
Speaker 3: is a modest win by Kamala Harris when it comes
Speaker 3: to the electoral College, but one that will be pretty
Speaker 3: clear by midnight Eastern or at the latest by that morning.
Speaker 3: I do think that's the most likely scenario. I do
Speaker 3: think that the people immediately around Trump will do exactly
Speaker 3: what you said, which is they'll come to defend him
Speaker 3: with their irregularities and all of the different stuff. But
Speaker 3: I do think it's becoming increasingly clear to most Republicans
Speaker 3: that if Trump doesn't win, it's over for him. I
Speaker 3: know there's debate will he run again in twenty to
Speaker 3: twenty eight? Will he not run again.
Speaker 4: If you lose? I don't think he's running again, and
Speaker 4: I think it'll be.
Speaker 3: A self fulfilling prophecy where by the early morning of
Speaker 3: November sixth, every sane Republican defines sane however you want.
Speaker 3: But even these guys who kind of recognize the damage
Speaker 3: that Trump has done to the party, I think they'll
Speaker 3: realize that Trump has lost the power and they will
Speaker 3: start a banditing him. They won't denounce him, but I
Speaker 3: think that by the end of November sixth, if Trump loses,
Speaker 3: you are going to have a large cadre of Republicans.
Speaker 3: They won't be praising Kamala Harris, but they're going to
Speaker 3: be ready for a completely non Trump midterm and certainly
Speaker 3: twenty twenty eight, I think it's over for Trump. If
Speaker 3: he loses, he'll say he won. Some people will try
Speaker 3: to push some kind of scheme, but I think Republicans
Speaker 3: will start dropping within twelve hours of the election results.
Speaker 1: Okay, a lot to unpack there. I totally see how
Speaker 1: that scenario plays out. That it's like pushing a car
Speaker 1: uphill and all of a sudden.
Speaker 2: The momentum is over.
Speaker 1: Forward, progress is done, and it's just going to start
Speaker 1: rolling back back down the hill. Right It's just you know,
Speaker 1: it's not it's not going to not going to go
Speaker 1: up one more inch, but I'm gonna come back to that.
Speaker 2: So I was.
Speaker 1: I was on Script's Morning Rush a month month or
Speaker 1: so ago, and the subject came up about Trump in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty eight, And so I'm with you because I
Speaker 1: like to view myself as the sane person. Right, So,
Speaker 1: of course, right, the idea that he would run again,
Speaker 1: there's only been one person in all of American history
Speaker 1: who's ever been a four time nominee. Fdr Trump is
Speaker 1: one of three that's done it, including him, right, that's
Speaker 1: done it three times. But when I was on television
Speaker 1: and I and I answered the question, is everybody going
Speaker 1: to go to more alago seeking his support?
Speaker 2: And the answer is going to be, yet will he be.
Speaker 1: Restrained enough to say, I don't know, well, to wait
Speaker 1: and see, because he doesn't have to run for president,
Speaker 1: He just has to freeze the race with a wait
Speaker 1: and see. And my question about Trump twenty eight imagining
Speaker 1: a laws and stipulating to how completely insane it sounds,
Speaker 1: is if you could get to Trump twenty twenty four, right,
Speaker 1: if by twenty twenty four this election we're in if
Speaker 1: he didn't cross the line between twenty and twenty four
Speaker 1: of no return, meaning that if he didn't do things
Speaker 1: by the time we get to this year, that it
Speaker 1: inhibit your ability to support him, or more precisely, to
Speaker 1: say no to him, like.
Speaker 2: No, you shouldn't run again.
Speaker 1: Then what's going to happen that's different this time than
Speaker 1: what happened last time. With regard to someone like Lindsey Graham,
Speaker 1: you know who I spent a year in my life
Speaker 1: with traveling around America on a presidential you know, campaign airplane.
Speaker 1: I I just I think it's the great question, right,
Speaker 1: how the fever breaks? Because and I write about this obviously,
Speaker 1: and I talk about it all the time, but you
Speaker 1: just said it perfectly on a couple of minutes ago.
Speaker 1: None of these people believe right that Kamala Harris is
Speaker 1: mentally disabled, but none of them will repudiate.
Speaker 2: It because they're cynics. And so what you have with.
Speaker 1: Trump in this coalition, a coalition of believers and cynics,
Speaker 1: true believers, right, true MAGA fanatics and people that think
Speaker 1: those people are crazy. But nevertheless, you know, we're all
Speaker 1: sitting around the table with each other trying to get
Speaker 1: political power in the country. So I think it's the
Speaker 1: I think it's the great question at hand is where
Speaker 1: what happens to Trump up right? Where where does he go?
Speaker 1: What does he do? You know in the aftermath of this,
Speaker 1: if you proved to be right, and I'm with you,
Speaker 1: I think that that more likely than not that that's
Speaker 1: what's going to happen. Right, There'll be an exhaustion that
Speaker 1: sets in. But then again maybe not, because his hold
Speaker 1: on them has been has been pretty pretty strong. And
Speaker 1: you know, the reality is it's like an avalanche, right,
Speaker 1: It's like, if enough momentum gets downhill, right, it's people
Speaker 1: get on board with this craziness. You know, if it
Speaker 1: stalls out at all early, right, you may have a
Speaker 1: break in the avalanche.
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 3: I think the question about the fever breaking is reasonable,
Speaker 3: and if you kind of step back, it's not unreasonable
Speaker 3: to say, well, hold on. He lost twenty twenty and
Speaker 3: said we're going to take it back and held the
Speaker 3: party in limbo and then said I am running and
Speaker 3: he still had vast majority of the support and they're
Speaker 3: not abandoning him.
Speaker 4: Why wouldn't the.
Speaker 3: Exact same scenario play out over the next four years
Speaker 3: that did the last four years. But I think there
Speaker 3: are differences. One is, in twenty twenty there were more
Speaker 3: people than I expect there will be this time who
Speaker 3: went with the it was stolen and we need lass
Speaker 3: suits and we need this and that Trump will try it.
Speaker 3: But with the experience that it failed in twenty twenty,
Speaker 3: I think he's going to get less momentum with that.
Speaker 3: That'll be one difference. Number Two, there's a difference between
Speaker 3: a two time loser and a one time loser, which
Speaker 3: maybe he didn't even really lose. It's going to start
Speaker 3: feeling different. It's going to be an accumulation. And then
Speaker 3: Trump will also you know, he'd be eighty two at
Speaker 3: the time of the next one. And I think in
Speaker 3: the same way that some people felt, many people felt
Speaker 3: that Joe Biden is too old to do four or
Speaker 3: more years, you'll have a slice that thinks the same
Speaker 3: about Trump. So I just don't believe the momentum will
Speaker 3: get going on November sixth the way it did in
Speaker 3: twenty twenty, despite anything Trump can do or say, what do.
Speaker 1: You think that Harris has to do to close this
Speaker 1: out and put this away?
Speaker 3: I mean, to a degree, it's like it seems if
Speaker 3: she doesn't make mistakes, she'll have a narrow electoral victory.
Speaker 4: I don't know if I look at it quantitatively. First,
Speaker 4: it's like it's looking.
Speaker 3: Like Trump might be able to flip Arizona and Georgia,
Speaker 3: but also maybe not, and even if he does, he
Speaker 3: still loses. So in a sense, it's almost like if
Speaker 3: nothing changes and no major mistake takes place, she probably
Speaker 3: wins with between two seventy eight and three oh six,
Speaker 3: which I believe, I don't remember if it's three oh
Speaker 3: three or three oh six, which is what it would
Speaker 3: be this year if she had the same states. I
Speaker 3: know there's been a slight realignment of the electoral votes,
Speaker 3: but it seems the most likely outcome is a Harris
Speaker 3: victory with between two seventy eight and the low threes,
Speaker 3: with a couple states maybe flipping. So that's my instinct,
Speaker 3: which is I don't think she really needs to do
Speaker 3: anything other than keep doing rallies with the crowd sizes
Speaker 3: that she's getting, don't make any major mistakes. But I
Speaker 3: also am not so naive as to think that nothing
Speaker 3: will happen over the next thirty days that will require
Speaker 3: something of her. That will be a departure from what
Speaker 3: she's been doing, and I just don't know what that
Speaker 3: is yet.
Speaker 1: I think that the Haitians eating pat story is of
Speaker 1: monumental importance because if I can convince anybody that that's true,
Speaker 1: I can convince them of anything right. That's a lie
Speaker 1: of authority. It's also while ludicrous, and I certainly laughed
Speaker 1: out loud, and if someone was recording me, I don't
Speaker 1: know what my facial reaction would have been. But you know,
Speaker 1: Aamlaharis spoke for the world, right, for the country, you
Speaker 1: know when she encountered it. That being said, it is
Speaker 1: a malicious racist lie, as absolutely vicious as anything that
Speaker 1: came out of the mouth of a striker or at gobels.
Speaker 1: It is dehumanizing. He would not have been talking about
Speaker 1: Scandinavians like this.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 1: The picture is hordes of tribal blacks descending on this
Speaker 1: white town of Springfield, Ohio and snatching the golden retrievers
Speaker 1: out of the backyard for some.
Speaker 2: Voodoo ceremony, eating them.
Speaker 1: And he won't stop when he finds out the hospitals
Speaker 1: are locked down, that the schools are locked down, you
Speaker 1: won't stop.
Speaker 2: He's doubling down.
Speaker 1: He is repeatedly talking about locking up political opponents, shutting
Speaker 1: down media organizations, revenge violence, prepping the country for the
Speaker 1: election is going to get stolen. And so I've analogized
Speaker 1: many times the race to a river, and the current
Speaker 1: only takes the water in one direction, so there's never
Speaker 1: ever going back. And I started a couple of weeks
Speaker 1: ago talking about how incendiary, how crazy, how the rhetoric
Speaker 1: is go to increase, and it's increased in that direction
Speaker 1: substantially in the last two weeks. October is here. What
Speaker 1: do you see a head a lot of worry about
Speaker 1: about this month? That is that is going to be
Speaker 1: a chaotic month in in American life, in American and
Speaker 1: American politics.
Speaker 4: I think it almost certainly will be.
Speaker 3: And there's this idea of going and I'm looking for
Speaker 3: a different word than intimidating, but I think intimidating is
Speaker 3: right on the basis of the way people look looking
Speaker 3: to challenge or question people's legal voting status. This guy,
Speaker 3: Brian Glenn, who used to be on right side broadcasting,
Speaker 3: and he's moved on somewhere else. I think he's dating
Speaker 3: Marjorie Taylor Green. He told his audience, go to the
Speaker 3: polling places and if you see something that looks out
Speaker 3: of place, if you see someone that you don't think
Speaker 3: maybe is there legally, it's obvious what we're talking about, right.
Speaker 3: It's it's not a white grandmother. That's not the image
Speaker 3: of someone that looks like they're out of place that
Speaker 3: Brian Glenn and his ilk.
Speaker 4: Are pointing to.
Speaker 3: He's saying, do what you can, get an observer involved,
Speaker 3: or call the police, or whatever the case may be.
Speaker 3: Trump has been talking about police at polling places in
Speaker 3: order to monitor in all of this, I'm so concerned
Speaker 3: about it that it's borderline where I'm wondering whether it
Speaker 3: will affect turnout, although I'm not yet over the line
Speaker 3: into thinking that it will, but it will certainly cause chaos.
Speaker 1: There's Kamala Harrison to turn and face Trump and talk
Speaker 1: to the contrary and talk about the fear directly and
Speaker 1: the stakes in a way that's more vivid, and she's done.
Speaker 2: It so far.
Speaker 3: My biased view is that I would like to see
Speaker 3: her do that, but I always try to consider someone
Speaker 3: who doesn't work in this field, but is you know,
Speaker 3: working in Michigan and dealing with a student loan and
Speaker 3: making sure they pick up their kids, but also being
Speaker 3: on time to work. And is the economic message really
Speaker 3: the single and soul message here that is going to
Speaker 3: be the most motivating or will you know? Because where
Speaker 3: I hesitate Steve is that if you watch your average
Speaker 3: Harris rally right now and your average Trump rally, there
Speaker 3: is a positive vision coming from Harris and a dark
Speaker 3: apocalyptic vision coming from Trump. Now, you can say it's
Speaker 3: kind of standard. When Harris is, in a sense the incumbent,
Speaker 3: she wants to argue things are good and will continue
Speaker 3: being good. It's natural that she would have a positive vision,
Speaker 3: whereas on the other hand, Trump is trying to argue
Speaker 3: things are so bad you need to elect me. But
Speaker 3: I think it goes beyond that. I think that there's
Speaker 3: actually more to it. And I've said when I watch
Speaker 3: these competing rallies sometimes back to back, it doesn't seem
Speaker 3: to me that the apocalyptic dark vision from Trump with
Speaker 3: the lurid stories, and he had a thirty second rant
Speaker 3: about Wisconsin over the weekend that sounds like he's describing
Speaker 3: I don't know what he's describing. I don't want to
Speaker 3: ascribe it to any particular country. But certainly not Milwaukee.
Speaker 3: Right when you listen to it, you go, that doesn't
Speaker 3: sound like Milwaukee to me, because I question whether Trump
Speaker 3: doing it helps him convert anybody. I just don't know
Speaker 3: if Harris is better off sticking with the economic message
Speaker 3: rather than the here's what you really should be afraid
Speaker 3: of message, other than when it comes to women's bodily
Speaker 3: autonomy and reproductive rights, which does seem to have been
Speaker 3: really effective at telling people what the stakes are.
Speaker 1: Do you have a sense with the women in your lives,
Speaker 1: with the women in your life and the women around you,
Speaker 1: about their motivation to go and vote and their reaction
Speaker 1: to Trump saying, you know, the women are never going
Speaker 1: to be happier. Hey, this is going to be beautiful, right,
Speaker 1: the states.
Speaker 2: Have it, don't worry about it.
Speaker 1: Right, there's going to be in all the all the
Speaker 1: trumpe and bomb bast around this, around this issue, because
Speaker 1: you know, people, I honestly don't know what to say.
Speaker 1: I don't conceivably know what I could say to a
Speaker 1: woman in America to urge him to, you know, participate
Speaker 1: and vote and stand up. You know that that adds
Speaker 1: any weight beyond the weight of the evidence around what's
Speaker 1: happening in the in the country, which is which is
Speaker 1: shocking to.
Speaker 2: Behold, you know, at at many levels. But fired up?
Speaker 2: Are they worried?
Speaker 1: Are they scared? Or more women for Trump than you are?
Speaker 1: You are prized about what's anecdotally.
Speaker 4: You know, anecdotally.
Speaker 3: I am maybe the wrong guy to ask, because I
Speaker 3: know mostly women in blue states who are on the left.
Speaker 3: And so there's two elements to that that are important.
Speaker 3: One is, they weren't voting for Trump anyway, even before
Speaker 3: all of this craziness with IVF and he's very big
Speaker 3: on fertilization and all of this stuff that you know
Speaker 3: that makes no sense, So they weren't voting for him anyway.
Speaker 4: But also, most.
Speaker 3: Of the women I'm talking to have a confidence we
Speaker 3: can discuss whether it's appropriate or not that because they
Speaker 3: live in blue states.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 3: I talk to my friends in New York and Connecticut
Speaker 3: and Massachusetts and they go, this stuff is nuts, but
Speaker 3: I'm so confident that we're going to be fine in
Speaker 3: this state. I feel bad for the women in fill
Speaker 3: in the blanks, right, And so I think that the
Speaker 3: people I'm speaking to directly are kind of in that camp,
Speaker 3: which is privileged in the sense of the stakes feel
Speaker 3: lower on a lot of these issues. In the states
Speaker 3: that have an HDI equivalent to Norway right, like Connecticut
Speaker 3: and Massachusetts, it's a different situation than it is in Mississippi,
Speaker 3: for example. Now, one other thing I saw the good
Speaker 3: liars who do these interviews at Trump rallies.
Speaker 4: They're really good.
Speaker 3: They interviewed a woman recently who said she it was
Speaker 3: you know what about such and such who said, they're
Speaker 3: not even sure women should have the right to vote.
Speaker 3: At this point, I don't even remember who said it,
Speaker 3: but recently somebody in Trump's orbit suggested, I don't even.
Speaker 4: Know that it's that good that women vote.
Speaker 3: The woman said, if the country's taken care of, I
Speaker 3: don't care if.
Speaker 4: I have the right to vote.
Speaker 3: And it was this incredible moment where it's that's hook
Speaker 3: line and sinker.
Speaker 4: These are the saviors.
Speaker 3: And my role whether I vote or I don't vote,
Speaker 3: They're going to tell me what my role is and
Speaker 3: it's not for me to evaluate this is good or
Speaker 3: bad or scary, or whatever the case may be. And
Speaker 3: that's so different from everybody I talk to personally. That
Speaker 3: what influences the people I know personally, and what would
Speaker 3: impact that woman who said.
Speaker 4: Take away my right to vote.
Speaker 3: As long as we've got Trump instead of Harris, we're
Speaker 3: gonna be okay. It's hard to imagine the same campaign
Speaker 3: motivating all of those voters because their priority seems so different.
Speaker 1: Perfectly said, it is a wild time, and I think
Speaker 1: it goes without saying that. Ten years into this and
Speaker 1: it's ten years, three election cycles, it feels like it's
Speaker 1: coming to its end to me, And it feels like
Speaker 1: that we're going to be closing the door on a
Speaker 1: generation of political leaders, many of whom are still around
Speaker 1: in their eighties. But we're going to see a lot
Speaker 1: of change in the in the immediate in the immediate future.
Speaker 1: And we're at a moment where I think that the
Speaker 1: country is either going to pick more of craziness at
Speaker 1: an epic level or or make ready for generational change.
Speaker 1: And if passed his prologue, we're gonna have generational change.
Speaker 1: We're gonna we're gonna take the exit off of this.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and there seems to be an accelerationism that you know,
Speaker 3: I've spoken over the last however many years on my
Speaker 3: show how I'm not an accelerationist leftist who believes that
Speaker 3: we need to dismantle the system to rebuild it better
Speaker 3: off as a social democrat, which is a form of
Speaker 3: regulated capitalism. I don't want to dismantle because I know
Speaker 3: how many people get hurt in the dismantling. I just
Speaker 3: want to keep making improvements in the way that sort
Speaker 3: of Ted Kennedy said, let's keep making improvements in the.
Speaker 4: Right direction rather than the wrong.
Speaker 3: I think what a slice of those that are part
Speaker 3: of MAGA right now are starting to lean towards is
Speaker 3: the accelerationism.
Speaker 4: It's if you know, they.
Speaker 3: Stole it from us in twenty twenty, if they do
Speaker 3: it again, the threshold of what I'm willing to personally
Speaker 3: do changes. My hope is that the air will be
Speaker 3: let out of it, especially if Republican officials in the
Speaker 3: aftermath of a Trump loss say we're moving on.
Speaker 4: I'm not jumping on that.
Speaker 3: It was stolen bandwagon this time, So I hope it
Speaker 3: will be tempered by that. But anecdotally, I do see,
Speaker 3: including the people that my correspondence talk to, it rallies
Speaker 3: sort of a willinglessness to adopt some of that accelerationism
Speaker 3: by the right about if they're going to steal it
Speaker 3: from them twice, we're now willing to do a lot more.
Speaker 1: It's also being said in the fervor of the rally
Speaker 1: with Cajun of the crowd when everyone's home staring at
Speaker 1: their phones, right and it's cold outside. We'll see, We'll
Speaker 1: see where the fervor goes if the if the fever breaks,
Speaker 1: And until then, I think we're gonna have a very
Speaker 1: very dramatic month in American politics, which is gonna have
Speaker 1: a lot of twists and turns and wild days ahead
Speaker 1: in a race that, though she is winning, is not
Speaker 1: yet over, it is not yet settled, and it is
Speaker 1: not impossible for him to win. It's not even improbable
Speaker 1: for him to be able to win the election. But again,
Speaker 1: I think it will break in her direction in the
Speaker 1: in the next couple of weeks as the American people
Speaker 1: make their final decision, and I think, cancel a show
Speaker 1: that has gotten pretty boring.
Speaker 4: The show has jumped the shark, I think we can.
Speaker 1: Say, and that is a perfect place to end it.
Speaker 1: With David Pacman of The David Pacman Show, I urge
Speaker 1: you to subscribe to watch it. One of the great
Speaker 1: things about this era of transformation in the media is
Speaker 1: the creation of great news stars, and great news shows
Speaker 1: and great new sources of information. David Pakmis are only
Speaker 1: one of them. David really appreciate you taking the time
Speaker 1: to spend some time with the Warning audience today.
Speaker 4: Thank you really appreciate it. Thank you.
Speaker 1: I'm Steve Schmidt. This is the Warning and I invite
Speaker 1: you to join. Subscribe on our substack, on our YouTube channel,
Speaker 1: follow us. Welcome to the community.