Speaker 1: Let's go next to Jeremy from Chicago. Jeremy,
also a member at David Packham. Jeremy, I very much appreciate that.
Jeremy, you've muted yourself for some reason. I would love for you to unmute yourself.
Then you'll be able to talk to me. Speaker 5: Oh, hi. Can you hear me?
Speaker 1: I can hear you. Yes. Speaker 5: Nice. Awesome. Cool. So, yeah.
I am a member of your show. Thank you. One of the reasons for that. Besides the award winning bonus
show, which you make so much money off of, is the soundboard. And the soundboard is so freaking
hilarious, and I really appreciate it. Speaker 1: Thank you. I appreciate that.
Speaker 5: My question about the soundboard is, besides Obama and Troth essential, right?
What are your favorite sounds in the soundboard. Speaker 1: Via the technical glitches? When Trump
does speeches and the audio goes haywire and it frustrates Trump, or probably some of my favorite
ones. Also, Trump trying and failing to pronounce Indian names while he was in India at a speech.
Those have got to be pretty near the top for me. Speaker 5: That's for sure, because I think
I emailed you about adding more
sounds to the soundboard. Speaker 1: Yes. And we
will do that. We are continuing to expand it. Speaker 5: Awesome. Awesome. One more question,
please. I trump in 2024, assuming that he wins the 2024 election, do you think that he will
find a way to extend his presidential life? No. To like not even 2028?
Speaker 1: No. Speaker 5: Like I'm just trying of like.
Ask this question in terms of like if I don't see him like.
Speaker 1: I think I know where you're going with this. It's hard to imagine him leaving
calmly and quietly. If Trump wins in 2024, he'll be inaugurated in January 2025, and he will leave
in January 2029. I do not believe that he is going to do anything to try to get himself a third term.
Speaker 5: So about that, like, do you think he will like this? This sounds so crazy for like like
trying to over rule or repeal the 22nd Amendment. Speaker 1: No, I don't think so.
Speaker 5: That's all I have. Speaker 1: Yeah. No, I don't think
he's going to do that. I think I'll do his his his years five through eight, and then he'll leave.
Speaker 5: Okay. No, I just was curious because, like,
you know, he is leaning to dictators like Poon and President Xi from China,
and so, like. Oh, no, I that's my assumption is that she wants
to stay present for as long as he wants. Speaker 1: Yup. No, I think he's dangerous
in a lot of ways. He tried to steal the election in 2020, but I think four more years at the most
is what we will have from Trump. All right, Jeremy from Chicago, great to hear from you.
Very much. Appreciate it. Let's go next to Andrew from Massachusetts. Andrew from Massachusetts,
welcome to the program. What's going on? Speaker 3: I do. And you hear me? Yes.
So my question is related to the PBC podcast, and I'm actually halfway through the Lex Friedman
interview. Okay. It's about something that Lex said about your appearance on the Peabody podcast.
So Lex suggested while you and Patrick probably had some disagreements that
many of Patriot's arguments with you during that podcast were kind of just in service
of playing devil's advocate to bring out the best in you. Do you recall him saying that?
Speaker 1: I recall him saying that, yeah. Speaker 3: Okay. So I think that's a
pretty charitable take. Speaker 1: Yeah. You.
Speaker 3: Yeah. So I'm wondering what you think about that, especially given that I don't know if
you've heard that Patrick made a $100 million offer to Tucker. This was obviously before he
announced he was going to Twitter. Yeah, but if you've heard about the $100 million offer and.
Speaker 1: I did. Speaker 3: I know what you.
Speaker 1: So here's the thing. Here's the thing, Andrew Patrick. Bet David is a Trump
guy. Okay. I don't know how much I don't watch all of his episodes by any means,
but it's very clear he's a Trump guy. You know, we talked a little bit behind the scenes,
like he's a Trump guy and that's totally fine. He's not like he doesn't seem like an unhinged
social conservative, although he sort of seems to be delving into the trans stuff a little bit.
But I think mostly for economic reasons, he kind of likes the Trump stuff. So when Lex Friedman
said that he thought a lot of what Patrick was doing was just playing devil's advocate,
I didn't agree. But the thing, especially in a three and a half hour interview,
like when I was on the Lex Friedman show is I can't argue about everything I disagree with.
And the call I made as the interview was going on was it doesn't make sense to kind of stop the flow
to argue about whether PBD was playing devil's advocate because Lex wasn't actually there. He
watched it and it's based on my recollection, it wouldn't have been an interesting place to
kind of like get into it, if that makes sense. So that's why sometimes you just kind of have to let
things go in order to get to something that you think might be more interesting or substantive.
Speaker 3: Right. Thanks for the clarification. I think that's that's all I really had to do.
Speaker 1: All right. Thanks. There's Andrew from Massachusetts with a question about my
discussion with Lex Friedman, about my appearance with Patrick. But, David, both of either of which
I would be glad to do again. Let's go to Samantha from Philly. Samantha from Philly, welcome to the
David Pakman Show. What's on your mind today? Speaker 3: Hey, David. Thanks
for taking my call. Speaker 1: My pleasure.
Speaker 3: I really enjoy the show and I enjoy when you talk about polling. Okay.
And my question was, how does polling take into consideration specifically voting? Look, voting
on issues, I guess, and voting. Just politically bias. Yes. What do you mean? So I guess what I'm
getting to is how does how does polling taken to consideration new population trends that haven't
emerged yet as voters per se, but they will. Speaker 1: So you might so like an example would
be if right now in May of 2023, you're doing a poll of Texas voters about how they plan to
vote and you are normalizing the sample based on the 2022 data, for example, about gender and
race and age and all these different things. But that's exactly, for example, that like by 2024 is
election, there will be more Latino voters. And so you actually need to account for that in your
methodology. Is that sort of what you're asking? Speaker 3: That's exactly right. It could be
any sort of demographic that explodes in the next election, but hasn't yet.
Speaker 1: The answer is basically there's two versions of the answer, and both are kind of
right. One is different polls account for that in different ways. And if you read the methodology
page, they will usually tell you how they are, how they are picking their sample and adjusting
their sample. And then you can look and say, oh, this poll is adjusting the sample in a way that
does make sense. And this one is doing it in a way that doesn't. The other perspective will be
there's rarely polling done so far in advance that the demographic changes will be so big that
they'll make more than like a point of difference. And so, like, I actually think in many cases,
I don't know offhand whether my my example was the Latino population in Texas will grow and Latino
voters tend to vote other than Cubans. They tend to vote more for Democrats than Republicans. My
guess is, even without accounting for what the Latino population will be in November of 24,
that the difference between now and then isn't going isn't so significant that you that you
are going to be way off if you don't account for the change and use today's numbers. That
would be my statistical guess. Speaker 3: Do you feel that the
polling was accurate before the that you've seen for the midterms?
Speaker 1: I think it was. Well, you know, it's a good question. I think the problem with that
polling, you know, I'd have to review it. I don't remember. The polling generally said
the most likely scenario was Democrats keep the Senate and lose the House. And that did
happen. So in that sense, it was accurate. Yeah. Speaker 3: Yeah, it was accurate in that sense.
But, you know, I don't know if the reporting is just sensationalized, but, you know, everyone
said it's historical. The numbers are historical. We didn't see this coming. You mean the red wave.
Speaker 1: That they predicted would have been historic or
that what actually happened is historic? Speaker 3: What happened was historic that. Oh.
Speaker 1: It's unusual, certainly. I mean, Democrats should have done way worse than they
did. But particularly in the two months before the midterms, the polling did pretty closely
reflect what ultimately happened. Speaker 3: Okay. Well, all right,
great. That was my question. Speaker 1: All right,
Samantha from Philly, thank you very much. Let's take just the quickest of
breaks. We're going to keep talking to people who are waiting. So So hang on.
If you're waiting to talk to me. We'll take a very quick break and then be right back