Kamala Harris, Protagonist
Shortly before the debate started (I watched it after it was over, after getting some sleep), I tweeted that I wasn’t sure if journalists would even notice if Kamala Harris’ obvious efforts to get under Trump’s skin didn’t work.
There are so few journos who seem to understand (or be interested in) VP’s efforts to get under Trump’s skin, I’m not sure we’ll see a piece abt what happens if that effort fails.
The tweet is most interesting, in retrospect, as a record of my shock that so few experts understood Kamala Harris’ plan.
I first laid it out two weeks earlier. “I don’t think that even the outlets that recognize the troll are giving the Kamala Harris campaign enough credit for the jujitsu they’re engaged in with the debate,” I said in a post on how the Vice President’s campaign was deliberately pushing on Trump’s impulse control problems. My preview yesterday attempted to correct the misimpression that Harris was asking for open mics out of some sense of insecurity, before I noted that releasing a video of Trump’s top aides calling him unfit and another video mocking his obsession with crowd sizes made her plan clear.
There has been far less focus — or just as often, outright misunderstanding — on Harris’ efforts to make a Trump meltdown more likely. I’ve argued that was one purpose of Brian Fallon’s very public effort to get ABC to allow live mics. Even though the effort failed, it sets up a focus on the worries from Trump’s own handlers that he’ll lose his cool.
And yesterday and today, Harris has taken steps to make that more likely.
I’m not entirely sure what ABC did with the mics, because you could hear both at various times. Indeed, one of Trump’s biggest zingers, a preplanned one, came when he repeated her line back to her, “I’m speaking now.”
But the Vice President did with her animated, often mocking facial expressions what she might have done with an open mic in any case. She kept the camera on her, the entire time. And more often than not, even her facial expressions conveyed far more than Trump’s rants did.
Nate Silver and Frank Luntz both claimed that Harris failed the visuals, but here’s a good Bulwark post laying out how she beat Trump at his own TV game, and NYT framed the way she dismantled Trump’s ego in terms of her expressions. Something important Harris’ team did was force ABC to provide a podium sized to her height, limiting the visual impact of the ten inch difference in their height (though that’s one thing Nate said he didn’t like).
One of the more honest previews of the debate, from Hugo Lowell, described that Trump’s handlers were worried about whether Dr. Jekyll or Mr. Hyde would show up.
Donald Trump’s campaign is most concerned going into the debate against Kamala Harris with the former president’s mood, afraid that the mercurial Trump could engage in the kind of self-sabotage that turned off voters in the 2020 presidential election, according to people familiar with the situation.
The campaign’s internal refrain is whether they get “happy Trump” or “angry Trump”, the people said, as they count down the days to perhaps the final presidential debate this cycle.
Kamala Harris had absolutely no intention of leaving that choice to Trump.
She took every opportunity she could, from an initial handshake that turned that common gesture of courtesy into a remapping of the stage space for her own benefit, to get in his skin. (Presidential historian Michael Beschloss reminded that Ronald Reagan similarly surprised Jimmy Carter with such a handshake.)
And yes, she even mocked him about crowd size. If he weren’t already at the party by that point, Mr. Hyde arrived to stay.
WaPo said she “baited him.” So did CNN. BBC called it “goading.” And while it took NYT a few tries before they could come up with a headline that described reality (as is their wont), they described that the Vice President “burrow[ed] under his skin.” A WSJ editorial described:
She won the debate because she came in with a strategy to taunt and goad Mr. Trump into diving down rabbit holes of personal grievance and vanity that left her policies and history largely untouched. He always takes the bait, and Ms. Harris set the trap so he spent much of the debate talking about the past, or about Joe Biden, or about immigrants eating pets, but not how he’d improve the lives of Americans in the next four years.
Chris Christie critiqued, “she laid traps, and he chased every rabbit down every hole.”
There was little doubt what happened last night, after the fact. A dramatic success, CNN judged.
Harris came onstage with a clear plan: Throw Trump off his game.
It was, by any measure, a dramatic success.
Even at Fox News, there was little doubt what happened: both Bret Baier and Brit Hume saw what Kamala had done.
But beforehand, the press conceived the debate almost exclusively about what Harris had to do, not what she could or planned to do. Would she be up for it, journalists seemed to doubt, most buying into Trump’s hype that even Tulsi Gabbard could “eviscerate” Harris.
Journalists missed the Vice President’s clear intent because they treated Donald Trump as the protagonist of this story.
I don’t know how much the debate will affect the direction of the race. Though she struck blow after blow, it was still the 60/40-40/60 result I also predicted. The debate itself is most likely to have an effect for the way it gives Brian Fallon another opportunity to suggest Trump is too weak to take Harris on in a second debate. It might even lead some Trump cultists to wonder — to merely begin the process — of asking whether he really is the loser that Kamala Harris said he is.
But it may do something more important, indirectly.
In August, the press treated Kamala as the story largely because Trump was huddled in his mansions. But they still treated him as the protagonist. Every time he gave the order, they scurried to attend things billed as press conferences which were little different from his rambling rally speeches. He made them props in a fantasy that he had shared more about what he plans to do as President than Kamala Harris, and they were happy to play the role he demanded.
Yesterday, the press got their first chance — likely their only chance — to see the two candidates side-by-side.
And they left with the certainty that Vice President Kamala Harris was the protagonist of that story. Of this story.
Last night’s debate may not, directly, persuade many voters. But if it cures the press of their addiction to the Donald Trump con, it may have a dramatic effect on the race.
Update: Added the WSJ editorial. Noted that Fox News did too recognize what happened.
The reference to mass deportations and Haitians eating pets was horrifying. Trump is fomenting racism, win or lose does not matter. He is creating a following of racist to project a future of violence. JD Vance is his second hand up. It is not about the election anymore. It is about destroying government to empower the marketplace for solutions. I cannot believe the press puts a microphone in front of this coward.
[Thanks for updating your username to meet the 8 letter minimum. /~Rayne]
Regrettably, it happened so long ago that it is not on the Internet, but about 1980, the rightwingers agitating against Indochinese refugees in Iowa flogged the idea that they were eating dogs. I wrote “The History of Eating Dogs in Iowa” for The Des Moines Register with the result that the anti-dog eating bill failed. So you can still eat a dog in Iowa. Fun and true historical fact: the first published account of eating dogs in Iowa was written by Washington Irving.
I doubt the press can be cured of their addiction to Donald Trump’s con, after all, it’s been nine years with no real change in their behavior.
But I do think that Kamala exposed Donald as a liar and a coward, that was plain to see.
And she called him out, called him to another debate, which Trump will decline, further exposing his cowardice.
Kamala also said
“… we do not have in the candidate to my right the temperament or the ability to not be confused about fact. That’s deeply troubling. And the American people deserve better.”
Did she call him crazy? No, but almost.
“Confused about fact” suggests a civil way of saying “liar.” Lacking temperament or ability suggests a lack of “will” – he is disinclined and even unable to not lie. Which is true.
Harris said ‘old and tired’ at least twice and then ‘confused about fact’ was the cherry on top, imo. (when I was very young, in Orange County California, the ‘truth-rumor’ was that the recent Asian immigrants were eating everyone’s cats.)
Well said.
I still have a hard time understanding how even the most virulent Trump supporter could come away from last night’s debate thinking anything other than Trump’s totally unfit for any public office; it’s like denying gravity.
They’ve got that covered: his supporters are claiming the debate was rigged.
And that’s despite the fact that he got 9 more minutes air time than her. The “tell” in all of it was that she was quite comfortable with that disparity, relaxedly watching him self-immolate.
The visuals, his inability to make eye contact and her steady observation of his fugue episodes, were viscerally compelling.
Stephanie Rhule MSNBC tweeted
1 https://x.com/SRuhle/status/1833689375965581648
During 1st portion
KH : spoke 15x for 22.6 mins
DT : spoke 26x for 28.6 mins
2nd portion
KH: spoke 8x for 14.5 mins
DT : spoke 13x for 13.3 mins
Overall
https://x.com/SRuhle/status/1833708710813745610
KH: spoke 23x for 37.1 mins
DT: spoke 39x for 41.9 mins
What I observe via neighbors, friends, and relations is that there’s a chasm between knowing he’s unfit and voting for a Democrat, especially a woman, regardless of color. The Republicans I know will never vote for her. Are they going to sit out instead? I’m not seeing this.
Give it a week.
Gosh, I hope you’re right! All I know first hand is that several of my relations, neighbors, and lifelong friends just won’t vote Dem. They won’t.
Was in central IL on Monday (analogous to a lot of WI – relations and friends there, too). Loads of T yard signs and even saw a F*ck Biden flag atop a flagpole. That was pretty sour to see.
Harris sign output is behind the curve because of her abbreviated entry into the race. I went to our local Dem hq yesterday and they’ve got a 400 person list waiting for them. My guess is that they’re sending what’s coming off the assembly line to swing states first.
Those Republicans won’t be sitting out. The GOP is very good at GOTV. Dems need to GOTV, that’s all. They have the popular support but those supportive folks need to take the time out of their day to go to the polling location and cast their ballot (nb: Taylor Swift didn’t just say she supported Harris, she said she is casting her ballot (action not thought) for Harris).
I loved the takedown by Harris, but debates don’t change voters’ minds.
That’s you opinion. I guess we’ll find out for sure come November.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/interactive/2024/presidential-debate-voter-poll/
A friend just told me that a group of formerly Republican women just committed to VP Harris . Excellent news and it all helps . thanks for these insights too on here ++
I hosted a watch party at the senior housing apartment I’ve been living in, in Palmer, Alaska for the past 14 months. In the 42-unit building, we mustered six serious liberals. There was a lot of laughter.
I kept the front door open, so anyone walking the hall during the debate might join. A lot of frowns and negative head shakes.
I offered tension taming tea to my guests, but these 70+ year-olds didn’t want calm. We enjoyed seeing the lame weirdo our own age we so readily recognize being pasted and totally owned.
They’ll continue to follow him around. They can’t get enough of the empty spectacle. It will be hard for them to walk away from the what-outrageous-thing-will he-say-next coverage they’ve done for years. But voters matter more than journalists, and Harris may have done enough to bring the undecided voters she needs to her side.
Even Taylor Swift endorsed Harris after the debate. Swift signed off on her endorsement as “Childless cat lady.” That is a truly epic troll, and it will count for a lot with her fans.
Trump will still get an unwarranted amount of attention. But it may turn into the “look at that sad, washed up man” kind.
Taylor Swift’s endorsement after the debate probably twisted every last knife Harris left in Trump.
If Trump wants to compare Crowd Sizes, he doesn’t want to go up against the likes of Beyonce or Swift.
Power in numbers! 238 million followers for Taylor Swift. 320 million followers for Beyonce.
Trump already tried to do damage-control and co-opt the news cycle, by attacking Taylor Swift for endorsing Harris. (Reporters fell for it, as usual.)
And Elon Musk broke the creepy-meter by threatening to give her a child.
Trump is phoning into Fox and Friends for some therapy this morning. Apparently it was his “best ever debate” and he won it by “a lot.” But it was also “rigged”.
Lord, and the voters of America, please deliver us from this orange dumbfuck and his ludicrous, clownish buffoonery.
This is not new “news”, but this recent injection of 50 minutes or so of Trump simply UNABLE to finish a sentence or line of thought is exhausting. I do not think he does it as part of any plan. I think he is simply impaired in many ways not the least of which is the inability to block the flood of vitriol that seems in competition to leave his lips first.
No impulse control.
And..he physically does not look well.
Death Becomes He…Him
I’m not a fan of popular culture, but Taylor Swift’s endorsement right after the debate, with the photo of her holding a cat, was a very nice after-dinner drink at the end of a very satisfying meal.
I noticed the cat immediately, and I think it’s an excellent troll of both Trump and Vance. And has anyone else noticed that Vance’s side of the campaign isn’t much more than one gigantic Freudian slip after another about how he wishes he’d had a better mother?
Freudian free-fall, more like.
She also signed it, “Childless Cat Lady”, a direct jab at the Vance/Trump ticket.
I don’t think I’ve (knowingly) heard even 4 bars of Taylor Swift’s music, but I could not love her more, for how she’s lived her life. This is icing on the cake.
I think you could use a dose of Karma this morning: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzOvgu3GPwY
Kamala’s assertiveness to shake his hand and introduce herself was skillful. She was smart, sharp and direct. He hardly looked at her with his scowling face. What a contrast with Mr. Donny Downer and her vibrant, youthful and upbeat delivery. With Harris/Walz life is moving forward.
Paraphrasing but you get the gist.
Mafia Crime Boss to the little shop owner:
‘Eh, if you not gonna pay us, we ain’t gonna provide protection’
Trump’s Very Good Phone Call to Volodymyr Zelenskyy 7/25/2019 that got him impeached the first time:
‘Eh Volo, we’ll send you a bunch of tanks and bombs but first you gotta start an investigation of the Biden Crime Family, my opponent in this race’
Trump repeats himself in his closing remarks of last night’s debate:
‘Hey NATO allies, when I’m president again I’m not gonna protect you or Ukraine if you don’t pay me more’
Guess I’m really naive and embarrassingly ignorant but have all our Presidents done this short of shit on the world stage? I mean really, that’s serious transparency.
That he didn’t make eye contact was cowardly. He was intimidated.
Some journos do seem to have noticed the basic facts of what is happening in the campaign, finally. It is tribute to emptywheel.net that readers of this site were unsurprised by either candidate’s approach to the debate nor by how badly it went for Mr. Trump. But front page journos are stuck in a rut even after last night.
Many journos struggling to give up their old frame in this morning’s paper. “Tuesday’s debate was expected to center on defining Kamala Harris. Instead, with words and with body language, she turned it into a referendum on Donald Trump.” Lerer and Epstein, NYT. Goldmacher and Rogers (also NYT) at least saw what was plain to see, but “Laying out bait that Donald Trump eagerly snatched, the vice president owned much of the night, keeping him on the back foot and avoiding sustained attention on her own vulnerabilities.” They are grading her against their pre-existing storyline.
Similar at WSJ. At least the WaPo suspected something was up, put together a panel of normies (across the spectrum, yes, there are MAGA normies) and got a real story out of it. The normies saw, mirabile dictu, that Harris murdered Trump. Similarly, CNN did a “flash poll” revealing that viewers saw the rout that was there.
So we have this big gap between what normal people see and what journos see. Smallish viewership, 51million, so a lot of the information flow will go out there through the journos.
I am so glad I read EW every day.
The Trump brand has become a symbol for vitriol, and it is the anti-Democrat vitriol of the right wing information bubble that goads so many Republicans into voting Trump.
If Trump is elected again, we need to push the self-destruct button.
The debate was rigged? Breitbart headline, “3 on 1: Moderators Team with Harris to Debate Trump,” They saw it their way, and were strongly in denial. Shrieking that Trump won does not make it so. It suggests they saw a need to overreact.
It was nice to see a UC Law SF graduate (formally UC Hastings School of Law) use her excellent law education and prosecutorial/deposition experience to destroy Trump on TV.
Chris Christie was right; Harris created rabbit holes for Trump to jump into and, like the malignant narcissist pig he is, Trump dove headfirst down every rabbit hole.
A key moment for me was when Trump refused to answer multiple times David Muir’s question if Trump wanted Ukraine to win the war against Russia. It is obvious Trump wants Putin to win the war against Ukraine.
I don’t think Harris has anything to gain by appearing on stage again with Trump, but if she and her campaign advisors think by their immediately requesting another appearance on stage with Trump will cause Trump heartburn and gas and that he’ll ultimately refuse because he knows she KO’d him last night, maybe they know something I don’t.
The Taylor Swift endorsement is also huge in my opinion.
Sadly, there are people who look at Trump’s performance there and are getting pumped up. I wonder how much Trump intentionally performs to this group, or just naturally aligns with them. Both are alarming concerns.
During the debate, in the alt right, Nick Fuentes hit a milestone of Rumble followers and then considered Trump’s performance a major victory, due to laying off specific economic policies and railing at immigrants. Truly alarming.
https://archive.is/RFAIq
https://archive.is/PDr5n
And how many of those new followers are actually living, breathing people? How many are Russian bots or fake personas?
That’s why I don’t put stock in follower counts…we saw wild swings in 2020 as DHS and FBI would take down foreign bot nets. One of the oldest dirty tricks in the bag is to try to legitimize bad people by using shills and plants to make the crowd think there’s more acceptance of their ideas than there actually is.
“Anything You Can Do I Can Do Better”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHXGZCz2JqA
Backwards and in high heels.
Again, kudos to Marcy for calling this one right on the nose. Hopefully, the press will finally get the message.
What I haven’t seen enough of, except from Van Jones, is the realization that Kamala is the only one courageous enough to stand up to the schoolyard bully. And by continuing to do that, it inspired others. For all we know Taylor was going to tweet what she did regardless of the outcome. But maybe not. Maybe Harris’s courage inspired her. I hope that was the case because it needs to inspire the cowed press as well.
I would also give a shout out to ABC, David Muir and especially Linsey Davis for not being intimidated by Trump and calling him out in real time. I think a real turning point is when Davis astutely pointed out that no state allows its citizens to kill a baby after it is born. It seemed to embolden VP Harris a little too.
I hate to say it, but it’s really that simple. To defeat Trump, you just merely need to point out he’s wearing no clothes.
I’ve said this before here: the slow-motion waking of the American uncommitted faction to Trump’s naked self absorption, that has been enabled by scuttling synchophants, will be used in future generations to explain the meaning of Andersen’s fable.
And Harris may well be cast in those explanations as the kid shouting to the crowd, “The SOB is naked, people!!”
Extremely satisfying to watch Kamala Harris stand up to a bully confronting and calling him out. Excellent learning experience for uncommitted voters.
As Ms. Wheeler has described, the debate performances move the contest beyond politics and into culture.
Currently travelling in the USA I saw a Democrat sign in rural Maine which simply said “Harris, Obviously”.
Should be rolled out across the land after last night.