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.

image_print
111 replies
  1. HonestyPolicyCraig says:

    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]

    Reply
    • Harry Eagar says:

      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.

      Reply
      • Baltimark says:

        I was 15 and living on a farm along I-80 between Newton and Grinnell then. And I have a nugget of memory of reading your story, it being sufficiently outside the realm of normal to stick (I was also a Debate kid so my nose was in the news).

        Reply
  2. OnKilter says:

    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.

    Reply
    • Error Prone says:

      “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.

      Reply
      • Krisy Gosney says:

        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.)

        Reply
      • Attygmgm says:

        Her shade game was unmatched. And evoked not just his lying, but the underlying question: can the country afford a President who is disconnected from reality?

        Reply
  3. Bad Boris says:

    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.

    Reply
    • BRUCE F COLE says:

      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.

      Reply
    • Inner Monologue says:

      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.

      Reply
        • Inner Monologue says:

          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.

        • BRUCE F COLE says:

          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.

        • David F. Snyder says:

          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.

      • Maybe Noble C says:

        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 ++

        Reply
  4. Philip Munger says:

    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.

    Reply
    • originalK says:

      Back in 2016, when my mom’s non-Alzheimer’s dementia became more clear-cut, I mused about sending out Christmas cards on her behalf noting that we have good and non-so-good days, BUT AT LEAST SHE DIDN’T JUST GET ELECTED PRESIDENT. Despite his and his enabler’s best efforts, she is still here, on the cusp of end-stage, and taking things day-to-day has become indescribable. Good on you for engaging others to counter the insanity.

      Except for Newton’s 3rd Law as applied to politics (for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction), I would love to see the Harris campaign “flex” in Alaska, to put it in play. Especially with a message around Dobbs v. bodily autonomy.

      Reply
  5. The Old Redneck says:

    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.

    Reply
  6. Peterr says:

    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.

    Reply
    • dopefish says:

      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.

      Reply
      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        Trump’s way out of his league threatening Taylor Swift. If he wants to see a revolution, better yet, a boycott of everything that makes him money, he should keep it up.

        Ignoring oligarchs, who hide their wealth rather than broadcast it via Forbes, the world’s richest fascist threatens to rape and impregnate a billionaire performer and what? Claims it’s a joke? Why do we tolerate such people?

        Reply
        • Rugger_9 says:

          Travis might have something to say about it as well. ‘Leon’ better STFU or he’ll be missing various body parts and FWIW I suspect more than a few Chiefs (minus Butker) and Jason will help.

        • Rayne says:

          Reply to Rugger_9
          September 11, 2024 at 10:54 am

          You know what would be more damaging and hit “Leon” where it hurts without leaving a mark? A mass exodus from X encouraged by Swift and the Kelce brothers.

    • 200Toros says:

      I actually think Swift’s endorsement may prove to be the most significant event of the night. I think people do not understand her power, or the devotion of her fans, or her ability to mobilize the younger demographic. Her tours significantly contribute to the GDP of any country she is in, as reported by The Fed and the EU. Plus she is more successful and has more money than Trump, to add insult to injury!

      Reply
    • Error Prone says:

      Reading the Instagram item, it mattered that the closing para said Register if not registered already, and GOTV. It was as if Harris people wrote the item. It touched all bases.

      Reply
  7. scroogemcduck says:

    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.

    Reply
  8. PeteT0323 says:

    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

    Reply
  9. BRUCE F COLE says:

    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.

    Reply
  10. MsJennyMD says:

    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.

    Reply
    • GSSH-FullyReduced says:

      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.

      Reply
  11. TimothyB says:

    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.

    Reply
    • VinnieGambone says:

      Kamala used a line I first saw in EW comments after Trump said Biden. ” Never fired anyone. ”

      A younger sharper Biden might have quickly answered,
      “Yeah, but 81 million people fired you. ”

      Like to think many “important” people who never comment read and appropriate t EW community’s thoughts when it suits them.

      Not impossible Harris’s team grabbed that line from this site

      Same goes for prosecutors, only more so.
      Really, where would we be without Marcy and her contributors?
      At the mercy of the profit driven vandal and visigoth press.

      Reply
  12. OldTulsaDude says:

    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.

    Reply
  13. Error Prone says:

    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.

    Reply
  14. Sussex Trafalgar says:

    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.

    Reply
    • Rugger_9 says:

      Pretty key point for me. While no rational person wants wars there is one raging nonetheless brought on by Putin’s aggression. I think Muir could have followed that yes/no question with one along the lines of ‘Is Ukraine right to defend itself?’

      Reply
  15. zscoreUSA says:

    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

    Reply
    • vigetnovus says:

      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.

      Reply
    • SelaSela says:

      Luckily, those people are his base, and no one expects those people to be persuaded anyway. I don’t see any universe where Nick Fuentes followers would see it differently. But they are not the ones who decide elections.

      Unlike what some pundits say, Trump didn’t win 2016 because of the base. He won because he managed to destroy Clinton’s reputation (with help fro Comey, the Russians and the press), and suppress potential democrat voters.

      Reply
  16. vigetnovus says:

    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.

    Reply
    • BRUCE F COLE says:

      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!!”

      Reply
      • MsJennyMD says:

        Extremely satisfying to watch Kamala Harris stand up to a bully confronting and calling him out. Excellent learning experience for uncommitted voters.

        Reply
      • Rayne says:

        Those who won’t wake to the truth the flabby-assed orange-stained emperor is naked are subjects of another myth — they’ll follow the tiny-handed Pied Piper anywhere, right unto death.

        Reply
  17. Chetnolian says:

    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.

    Reply
  18. John Paul Jones says:

    One thing I noticed: talking about women having to leave state to get proper medical care, Harris asked us to imagine the feelings of a woman, on a plane, alone, and sitting next to a stranger. It struck me as odd, until I recalled that the picture replicated the situation of Jessica Leeds, who accused Trump of groping her on a plane.

    Reply
  19. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Trump waffles about an agreed second debate with Kamala Harris, but claims he won this debate “by a lot.” Don’t know whether that was before or after he left Sodom and Gomorrah.

    The market doesn’t think he won, though. Trump’s Truth Social media company is down nearly $3.00/share, which would seem to put it at an all-time low.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2024/sep/11/donald-trump-kamala-harris-us-presidential-debate-reaction-news-updates
    https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/djt

    Reply
  20. Oldguy99 says:

    For the few days leading up to the debate, it appeared to me that WaPo and CNN were starting to run more “Trump is unhinged” headlines and articles, though the Times was all in on “Harris is stalling out, does she need to reset?”

    To me, the question of how much effect VP Harris’ success will have come Election Day will hinge on whether those three outlets consistently run “Trump is unhinged, will it affect the election?” stories between now and then. I am hoping “he is unhinged” becomes this year’s “ but her emails”.

    Reply
    • BobBobCon says:

      I think it’s entirely possible they’ll follow the lead of GOP insiders and say Trump is unhinged in a way that gives them cover. But I also think they’ll still blow the story.

      In late 2020 Ross Douthat, who is definitely a tool for the GOP consultant class, was relaying the spin that Trump was a moody dope, but a harmless one who would react to losing by slinking off never to be seen again. Douthat claimed Democrats were wildly overreacting by talking about a coup.

      I wouldn’t be surprised if we see a similar thing this election. The DC press corps is truly bad at their jobs, and anyone who claims they’re playing 4D chess isn’t paying attention.

      Reply
  21. -mamake- says:

    Move the needle much? Lawrence O’Donnell pointed out the Polish vote in PN may make the difference. 800k living there and if only 10k of them swing to her because she rightly pointed out Putins goals….that could win the election. And ‘everyone knows’ T is Putins pup.

    Reply
  22. BobBobCon says:

    A good parallel to the media’s blindness to what Harris was saying about her strategy is the way the DC press was blindsided by the collapse of Kevin McCarthy.

    Not long before the mutiny, he was getting beat sweetners published. And the reason is that the Capitol Hill press corps never, ever bothers treating Democrats as serious sources the way they listen to people like Frank Luntz.

    The irony of course is that Team Pelosi has the greatest vote counters and rules experts in many decades. They follow every single thing everyday. If reporters listened to Dems, they not only would have known about McCarthy’s thin ice, they would have known just how weak the attempts by Jordan and Scalise were.

    Instead they listened to people like Luntz, who was recently literally living in the same apartment as McCarthy. The source networks for the political press are completely broken, and they’re too oblivious to understand what’s going on.

    Reply
  23. Rayne says:

    Ugh. Still stewing about Nate Silver and Frank Luntz as judges of optics.

    Would love to know if his BA in econ offered coursework on semiotics and cognitive psychology. He certainly didn’t take women’s studies if he thought Harris should have agreed to self handicap with a poorly-sized lectern.

    And Luntz — no way is that man ever unbiased.

    I have to wonder who trusts their judgment at this point.

    Reply
    • BobBobCon says:

      Patrick Healy sure trusts Luntz, which is why he’s still letting him run focus groups for the NY Times Opinion section. And of course there is zero disclosure by the Times of all of the conflicts of interest Luntz has.

      Reply
      • BobBobCon says:

        When Healy was a news reporter for the Times, he filed the infamous story on what he called the “Clinton Cackle.”

        On top of being incredibly sexist, the whole article was incoherent. But that’s typically how sexism works – it’s substituting an ugly vibe for any coherent thought.

        Reply
        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Healy fits right in with the NYT owners and senior management. That’s why he’s deputy editorial page editor.

    • Rugger_9 says:

      Luntz’ opinion has value since his talking points set the story for the GOP any given day. I think a couple of progressives are on his mailing list and something goes out every day.

      Reply
      • BobBobCon says:

        The problem is he is well known for saying different things to different audiences depending on what he wants.

        He was playing the game publically of casting doubt on Trump while doing message consulting for the Trump White House in 2020. He knows how to let his people know when he’s just blowing smoke.

        Reply
  24. Legonaut says:

    Just sticking to the issues and leaving out the theater: “I have a concept of a plan” about healthcare. Really?! You had four years in office (including a pandemic, for f***s sake), and four years since, and you *still* have no plan for one of the biggest concerns in American life? Literal life and death for millions across the entire population, and you can’t even be arsed to articulate a position?

    This should be all you need to talk to any MAGAt you meet.

    This fool doesn’t want the job. He wants the position and the power, certainly (and the immunity that now seems to go with it), but only one applicant on stage last night actually wants the job, and it isn’t the old white dude.

    Reply
    • Rayne says:

      You know who else Trump condemned with his “concept of a plan”?

      Every single Republican running for Congress. Trump should already have negotiated a plan as you said over the last eight years and where is it? Every Republican running should already know what it is in order to pass it.

      Every journalist covering these same Repubs should corner incumbents and candidates and ask them for details about this “concept of a plan” eight years in the making, the one they’ll be asked to pass in lieu of ACA.

      Reply
    • Legonaut says:

      I posted the above after waking up and reading some summaries of the debate. I didn’t realize that “I have concepts of a plan” was trending on social media as Trump’s lamest debate answer.

      Sorry for being Captain Obvious about this & wasting everyone’s time.

      Reply
    • harpie says:

      Just before Swift endorses Harris, she writes:

      […] Recently I was made aware that AI of ‘me’ falsely endorsing Donald Trump’s presidential run was posted to his site. It really conjured up my fears around AI, and the dangers of spreading misinformation. It brought me to the conclusion that I need to be very transparent about my actual plans for this election as a voter. The simplest way to combat misinformation is with the truth. […]

      Reply
      • Rayne says:

        I hope this next term under a Harris-Walz administration we can tackle regulating AI — and I hope Swift can be called to testify to Congress about it so that it gets the attention it deserves on behalf of cultural creatives and women most at risk from AI’s misuse.

        Reply
    • harpie says:

      https://www.thetrumparchive.com/ []

      9/10/24 [Eastern TZ]
      5:19 PM TRUMP [on TS]

      [meme: MAGA hat military CAT]

      5:34 PM TRUMP [on TS]

      [meme: TRUMP in a plane surrounded by ducks and cats.
      One large white fluffy FAKE [AI] CAT on his lap.]

      Next TRUMP posting:
      10:50 PM TRUMP [on TS]

      People are saying BIG WIN tonight!

      11:04 PM Taylor SWIFT [Instagram] [Endorses HARRIS]

      [PHOTO] SWIFT holding Gorgeous large fluffy REAL CAT]

      Reply
      • Rayne says:

        AHAHAHAHAHAH I hadn’t put together the timing on Trump’s stupid social media posts with feline-laden AI-generated images.

        Swift kicked him in the pussy with her endorsement, which she could do because she’s a celebrity.

        Reply
      • Legonaut says:

        Someone AI-generated a large white fluffy cat on his lap? You’re kidding, right?

        If you’re trying to win an election, you never go full Blofeld. Pick a damn calico or something!

        Reply
  25. Master Slacker says:

    Following Rove’s advice, I watched this evisceration with the sound off. It was art. Thank You, Marcy, for keeping us well and truly educated.

    Reply
  26. LordAvebury says:

    John Scalzi has an interesting take on this:

    “What I am here to say is that last night, Donald Trump was at the best any of us will ever see him again. This was the one place and time where he was meant to be prepared, coherent and presidential, where he was not surrounded by handlers, coddlers and sycophants. This was meant to be the one place and time where he was meant to keep his id and his ego in check, put voters and Americans first, and make a case for a second shot at the presidency. This was the one place and time where his worst and most self-indulgent impulses were supposed to be reined in. This was Trump on his best and most decent behavior, or at the very least, the best and most behavior he is capable of. We see how that went.”

    https://whatever.scalzi.com/2024/09/11/reminder-this-is-as-good-as-it-gets-with-trump/

    Reply
  27. Tom Christopher says:

    To me, the biggest effect will be to move a large percentage of undecided voters (and Polish people) to Harris. Undecided means that you aren’t voting for Trump, but don’t see another decent choice. Now they do. Of course as well, drag the youth to finally vote (thanks Taylor).

    [Welcome back to emptywheel. Please use the SAME USERNAME and email address each time you comment so that community members get to know you. You attempted to publish this comment as “Topcatone” triggering auto-moderation; it has been edited to reflect your established username. Please check your browser’s cache and autofill; future comments may not publish if username does not match. /~Rayne]

    Reply
  28. LaMissy! says:

    My kids were maybe five years old when we taught them: not everything you see on television is real. Are the seven million more people who voted for Biden in 2020 going to turn over the world’s largest economy and its nukes to a guy who believes everything he sees on the teevee? Electoral college aside, where are all the Trump voters going to come from? Maybe some Biden voters stay home, but so will some of the MAGA’s because this reality show is in re-runs.

    Reply
  29. Brian Ruff says:

    I’m excited to hear the details on Trump’s health care plan in the coming weeks; dare I say, two?
    With close to nine years of work going into it, I just know it’s going to be the best of all possible plans!

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.