She Gained the Psychological Battle However…

Subscribe right here: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube | Overcast | Pocket Casts

Essentially the most applicable phrases to explain how Kamala Harris triumphed over Donald Trump in Tuesday’s debate come not from political punditry however from the sector of psychology: triggered, baited, ego deflated. In reply after reply Kamala Harris went straight for Donald Trump’s tender spots, calling him weak, saying he was a straightforward goal for dictators “who can manipulate you with flattery,” and that he was having a “troublesome time processing” that he really misplaced the final election.

Harris laid apparent traps, like saying folks left his rallies “out of exhaustion and tedium,” for instance, and he walked into almost all of them. The end result was that Trump was too distracted to land many punches.

On this week’s Radio Atlantic we discuss to political writers Elaine Godfrey and Mark Leibovich to discover the potential long run results of the dramatic debate. Will this new impression of Kamala Harris stick? Will Trump’s missed alternatives make a distinction? (And which is the appropriate Taylor Swift track to seize this political second?)

The next is a transcript of the episode:

Hanna Rosin: So, folks typically say that presidential debates don’t actually transfer the needle, except one thing goes incorrect. We’ve had two debates this election. The primary one mattered as a result of one thing went incorrect for Biden. Immediately, we’re going to speak about why this one additionally mattered. As a result of it went very incorrect for Trump. Like, even many Republicans mentioned that.

They have been spinning a loss earlier than it was over. I’m Hanna Rosin. That is Radio Atlantic. And at present, we’re going to speak to Mark Leibovich and Elaine Godfrey, who cowl politics for The Atlantic. Hello, Elaine.

Elaine Godfrey: Hello, Hanna.

Mark Leibovich: Hello, Hanna.

Rosin: So, we’re taping the day after the controversy. The final time the 2 of you have been on the present was two months in the past, after the disastrous Biden debate. The place do you assume Democrats at the moment are?

Leibovich: In a greater place. [Laughs.] Elaine?

Godfrey: A a lot better place. That appears like eons in the past that we did that.

Rosin: Effectively, like, really. Mark the second. Type of: The place are they really now?

Leibovich: Bringing everybody updated. Uh, about two months in the past, Democrats, or, you already know, the Biden-Trump debate: whole catastrophe for Biden.

Everybody knew it. You realize, inside 5 minutes. After which: a summer season that folks will write books about for, I feel, years.

Godfrey: Nope.

Leibovich: Nevertheless, I’ll skim a guide about it as a result of, you already know, all of us lived by means of it very vividly. However, no: So the occasions that occurred on June 27, I imagine it was, resulted in a series response that, as everyone knows, ended up in Biden dropping out, Harris changing into the nominee, and a substantial amount of momentum. Which appeared to be flagging a bit bit for Harris.

However, you already know, if it was, you’ll think about it has picked proper again up once more after final evening’s debate—which I feel she received pretty convincingly.

Rosin: Elaine, what was the primary second that stood out for you?

Godfrey: Oh, the primary second for me was undoubtedly the handshake. I used to be watching straight away. I had paused my Roku so I might be sure to get the handshake. And like, I used to be getting popcorn prepared. I used to be getting all the pieces prepared in my kitchen. Got here out, watched her aggressively transfer throughout the stage towards him.

Went across the podium to demand the handshake. He regarded very displeased.

Godfrey: Simply thought that was form of … that actually set the tone, I feel, for the remainder of the controversy.

Rosin: In what manner? As a result of, Mark, you really talked about to me earlier than the controversy that you just have been going to be careful for the handshake, and for those who suggested her, you suggested her to do precisely what she did: which was stroll as much as him and provides him a handshake. What was the importance of the handshake?

Leibovich: It was an influence transfer. It was completely an influence transfer by somebody who had a large opening to do it, which is—you go onto a stage with somebody you’ve by no means met earlier than. She was assertive in that she walked into his area. I imply, don’t underestimate the facility of area and space-taking and area invasion and all that.

And he didn’t fairly know learn how to react. It was a clumsy encounter. However she was answerable for it. I imply, she mentioned, “Hello, I’m Kamala Harris.” I don’t know if she rehearsed that or not. However what was clear to me was within the first jiffy of the controversy, he appeared a bit bit off stability. I imply, she appeared extra nervous than off stability.

However it was virtually as if he was regretting or second-guessing or seething. One thing about, I feel, that first encounter actually set him off on a foul notice.

Rosin: Mhm. So on a latest episode of this present, George Conway was on, and we talked concerning the specific technique of mocking and goading Trump that they have been attempting out on the Democratic Nationwide Conference. Conway mentioned on that episode that he had informed the Democrats they need to rent a group of psychological professionals to advise them learn how to get below Trump’s pores and skin.

I imply, I acquired the sensation that possibly that they had employed a group of psychological professionals to assist them get below Trump’s pores and skin. I imply, it actually felt like a psychological operation as a lot as a political operation.

Godfrey: It completely did. The primary handshake was the opening salvo on this, however like Mark mentioned, she appeared form of nervous at first. She shortly type of acquired it collectively, after which instantly projected that she was about to begin doing a variety of this stuff, like, baiting him. And that projection, I feel, took the type of her attempting to make this form of confused-slash-disgusted face at him every time she might. Like, it was as if her group had suggested her to make like, essentially the most meme-worthy expression attainable when she was Trump. There was one level the place she put her hand below her chin and checked out him sideways. After all, it took off on-line. And it was the right projection of: That is how I’m going to deal with Trump.

Rosin: It’s attention-grabbing, as a result of Maya Rudolph on SNL, when she makes enjoyable of Kamala Harris, makes enjoyable of her attempting to create memes, like she’s a try-hard with the memes. However one way or the other, yesterday, that factor of try-hard was lacking, prefer it was simply possibly 40 levels extra pure than it often is. And so the memes this morning, there have been about 80 completely different faces that she made. So you already know, you possibly can simply run the Kamala faces him. Whereas—I wager you seen this, Mark—did he take a look at her as soon as?

Leibovich: No, he didn’t in any respect. And, you already know, he simply couldn’t. And I don’t know if that was by design. I imply, he doesn’t appear terribly coachable. I imply, you may think about any variety of debate preppers, if he had any in any respect, would say, ‘Look, I imply, you already know, your resting face goes to be on digicam. Uh, while you take a look at her or don’t take a look at her, that shall be evident on digicam.’

She clearly was effectively ready. And I feel additionally—and I don’t know if I ought to say this, however I’ll say it anyway. She clearly was effectively ready. Um, she was not Biden. And what I imply by that’s, her face moved. I imply, Biden’s face didn’t transfer in any respect.

Rosin: You’re proper. The resting face of Biden was virtually what killed him within the final debate. Apart from that, form of—

Leibovich: —when he spoke.

Rosin: Apart from what he spoke. However it was his resting face, which—

Leibovich: Sure, it was like, type of the mouth barely agape. However she, I imply, I simply couldn’t cease being grateful that she was not Joe Biden. Sorry, Joe Biden lovers on the market. It was the novelty of her, the freshness of her face. I don’t imply to sound shallow, but it surely was only a actually nice asset for her aspect.

Rosin: For me, like, [when] the controversy turned and he or she was attempting to set off him was when she was requested a query about immigration.

Now, that is her weakest spot after which, this was a couple of minutes into the controversy. What’s her largest weak point? First, she says, you already know, “I prosecuted.” Then she talks about him killing the border-security invoice.

You realize, he makes him appear egocentric, like she’s already goading him. After which out of nowhere, she turns it into this factor about how his rallies are lame.

Rosin: After which, increase, what does he say two minutes later?

Godfrey: Rallies aren’t lame!

Rosin: Additionally, he says the sentence “In Springfield, they’re consuming the canine.”

Rosin: And that was the tip. I imply, that was the tip. It form of all went downhill from there. So while you guys have been watching the controversy, what was your response to that second?

Godfrey: So, for me, it felt so apparent. It felt like watching a storm coming. It was like: Okay, she’s baiting him. Is he gonna take it? And instantly: “Individuals love my rallies. They by no means go away my rallies early.” It was the right transfer for her. And he or she form of appeared to take that in and simply do it each time.

Like, after that, on the finish of each reply or non-answer that she gave, she would bait him with one thing, like, you already know, your loved ones left you 400,000, or no matter it—

Rosin: You want it was 400.

Godfrey: 400,000,000?

Rosin: Wasn’t—

Godfrey: Okay. Um, you already know, some huge cash. And he, you already know, instantly was defending himself from that. He can’t not reply to non-public assaults. And like, it was humorous, as a result of forward of the controversy, that they had been projecting that they have been going to do that. They have been saying to reporters, “We’re going to bait him.” And he was baited.

Rosin: Proper. Proper.

Leibovich: Yeah, no, I imply: I don’t assume, you already know, you want George Conway’s three or 4 psychological consultants to know learn how to get below his pores and skin.

Rosin: And when he would reply—like, for those who take that immigration reply, clearly the right political transfer can be to not say “My crowds are huge” however to get again to the immigration query, which is her weak point. So what have been the alternatives he missed by always taking the bait?

Godfrey: Effectively, I feel that we have been anticipating him to go in speaking about—no less than, there was one story saying, “He’s going to go after her prosecutorial document.” He didn’t do {that a} single time.

Rosin: Proper. Proper.

Godfrey: Was doing it completely on protection. She made it a complete referendum on him. It was under no circumstances him attacking her for something.

I imply, he had tons of room to additionally say, “Hey, you didn’t reply that query about, you already know, your pivot on fracking, your pivot on Medicare for All, et cetera. As a result of she didn’t, actually. And he might have known as her on it. And he didn’t as a result of he was too busy distracted by his personal, you already know, ego.

Leibovich: Yeah. I imply, anytime the dialog turns to immigration, I imply, it’s like a giant, however-many-minute-long reward to him. And he simply wasted it by taking the opposite bait. I imply, you already know, I feel one factor that helped Harris loads—and we’ll in all probability get extra to this—one of many questions that Trump acquired was about abortion. Which, you already know, clearly it’s a very uncomfortable difficulty for him, as he’s proven by his going, you already know, any variety of instructions on it in the previous few weeks.

After which he begins speaking, you already know, telling the lie about abortion. The late-term abortions and the “after-birth abortions.”

Rosin: One in every of my favourite moments was when the moderator calmly corrected him and mentioned, “Oh, executing infants isn’t authorized in any state,” after which simply moved on.

Leibovich: She nails the reply. It’s definitely a well-liked place that she holds.

[Music]

Rosin: After the break, what did they should accomplish getting in? And the way shut did every of them get? That’s in a minute.

[Break]

Rosin: What have been every of the candidate’s objectives going into the controversy? Like, let’s simply take into consideration what they have been attempting to perform, and whether or not they did accomplish that or not. So we’ll begin with Harris. Like: What did she have to do? She wanted to set off Trump. So she did that. We’ve lined that.

Godfrey: I feel she wanted to return in and present that she will converse off script, and that she will snigger at him and keep a way of form of maturity over him.

And I actually assume she did all of these issues. At first I used to be involved watching her, like, she was a bit shaky. However she acquired it collectively fairly shortly. I used to be stunned, frankly, as a result of simply so lots of her off-the-cuff moments are so foolish. So most of the issues she says are so phrase salad-y.

I feel her aim was not to try this, and he or she succeeded.

Rosin: It’s true. She didn’t sound something like she will typically sound in a public speech, which is like, what are you even saying? Sure.

Leibovich: One check that she handed—I feel, brilliantly—and this would possibly sound a tiny bit gendered.

Godfrey: Oh no.

Leibovich: I don’t imply to be, no. I simply need to say that when she is prosecutorial in a debate—as she was in 2019 towards Biden—she will appear a bit intimidating, a bit off-putting. She appeared extra “glad warrior”-ish on this setting. She regarded like she was having enjoyable. I feel that was an actual profit to her.

Godfrey: There was a second the place she simply checked out him. I neglect what the remark he made earlier than it was. However she simply checked out him and laughed, after which mentioned “Speak about excessive.”

Rosin: It was the canine.

Godfrey: The canine? Okay, sure, that’s proper.

Godfrey: And it was similar to—I imply, to your level earlier about her typically attempting to create a second that feels inauthentic. That felt genuine, as a result of we have been all doing that at residence. Proper. Like, Oh god, what? Yeah. Like, it was only a good response that felt like her actual one.

Rosin: Sure. I’m extra persistently stunned at how she has, uh, sidetracked or walked round gender and race. Like, I don’t know if that’s, the place the place American tradition is correct now, or I don’t know if that’s her and simply type of the area she inhabits. As a result of she’s extra of, like, a third-culture child with a variety of, you already know, blended type of ethnic heritage.

However it simply wasn’t a giant deal on this debate. Gender’s simply not—doesn’t seem to be—an enormous factor hanging over this election. What about Trump? So the query was: What have been their objectives going into the controversy, and the way did they accomplish them? Um, what do you assume Trump’s requirement was on this debate?

Leibovich: Uh: keep in management, don’t be triggered. You realize, hit your points like immigration, the financial system. Uh, I feel he failed on all these issues.

Rosin: Mm hmm. What about his different acknowledged aim, which was tying Harris to Biden? That was a giant factor that he was purported to be doing. How did he do with that?

Godfrey: So, his closing remarks have been, I feel, his simplest of the evening, which have been: If you wish to do all this stuff, why haven’t you achieved them? You’re actually within the White Home proper now.

Godfrey: My dude, you bought to open with that. Like, that’s insane to attend until the final minute when everybody’s in mattress. Uh, nobody’s listening to you anymore. And I additionally assume he couldn’t determine whether or not he wished to tie Harris to Biden or say “Biden hates you.” You realize—

Leibovich: —that was bizarre.

Godfrey: He mentioned each. I imply, choose one. If I’m Kamala Harris, I’m saying, “Okay, which one? Are we finest mates or are we enemies?” So I form of assume he failed on that. He might have achieved higher. That was an enormous missed alternative.

Rosin: So, we do not actually get a lot coverage in these debates, however I need to speak about what little coverage we did get. What of the coverage discuss caught with you?

Godfrey: Effectively, the moderators did an excellent job asking about coverage. They tried. They tried to fact-check. They, you already know, they tried. Uh, the factor that caught with me—one of many moments—I feel, was Trump wouldn’t say whether or not he wished Ukraine to win the conflict towards Russia. I believed it was good that the moderators requested him once more after he dodged the query, and he dodged it once more. Making his, you already know, non-position right here very seen.

It’s simply such a layup to reply that query, and I simply thought it was foolish that he couldn’t. The opposite, I feel, was once they requested him if he would veto an abortion ban. They mentioned, J. D. Vance, your operating mate, mentioned you’ll veto an abortion ban if it got here throughout your desk. And he mainly mentioned, I don’t know that man.

You realize, he was like, “We don’t discuss.”

Godfrey: And I simply thought that was, like, one other simple query. This man ought to know his place. Sure or no? He ought to realize it.

Rosin: You realize, typically when he talked about both coverage points and particularly international coverage, like Ukraine and Gaza, I had in thoughts what Invoice Clinton mentioned, which was: Rely the I’s. Like, rely the variety of instances he says “I.”

So they’d ask him a critical coverage query, and he would say, “I do know Putin; I do know Viktor Orbán. If I had been in cost, the Gaza conflict wouldn’t have occurred. It was odd, as a foreign-policy building, to persistently speak about his private relationships with, primarily, dictators. Yeah.

Godfrey: And, two factors on that. He seems to assume strongman means “very sturdy man.” Which I believed was enjoyable. And the opposite level is—

Rosin: You’re so proper! I didn’t consider that. Like we use strongman satirically. He makes use of it actually prefer it’s “a powerful man.” Sure.

Godfrey: —is a really, very sturdy man.

Godfrey: The opposite factor was his level about wanting, that if he was president-elect, he might finish the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Which I believed was a really, uh, humorous level to make. And I might have favored the moderators to say, “How would you do this with out being president?”

They didn’t have time for that, apparently, however I believed that was enjoyable.

Rosin: I feel I had an expectation that Kamala Harris would discuss a bit bit extra about a few of her insurance policies, a bit bit extra. Like, possibly it is a naive expectation, however even with immigration, you already know, no person says the plain. Immigrants don’t trigger crime. You realize, immigrants usually tend to be employed.

You realize, this factor that he says always at his rallies about how they’re sending us their legal immigrants. Like, there’s no fundamental, defensive immigration coverage. After which the outstanding second concerning the Inexpensive Care Act.

Godfrey: He had 9 years to provide you with the response to that query, after which he had solely an idea of a plan.

Rosin: I feel that could be a line that folks will use in many alternative methods.

Godfrey: Oh God, it’s throughout social media. Everyone’s utilizing it.

Leibovich: As I used to be watching the controversy, I imply, there have been many moments the place Kamala Harris, I type of wished would step outdoors herself and say, “Wait a minute. You probably did all the pieces attainable to kill Obamacare. You spent months attempting to do it. You virtually did. I used to be within the Senate. You keep in mind this, or possibly you keep in mind this.”

However John McCain, was the one factor that stood between you and the tip of medical health insurance for, you already know, thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of Individuals.

Rosin: It’s true as a result of folks do misremember his particular document, like what he did by way of coverage. Okay, one final element concerning the debate. I used to be watching this intently as a result of I’m doing a giant podcast undertaking about January 6ers and so I’ve simply been deep in that world for some time. The way in which he talked about January 6 and the revolt, very shocking to me.

Rosin: He goes backwards and forwards in when he leans in and leans out to, you already know, they’re political prisoners, you already know; that day was a wonderful revolution. He has these days leaned away from it, like on the Republican Nationwide Conference. There simply wasn’t a lot speak about this. The moderators gave him an out. They mentioned, Hey, these days you’ve been form of attempting to simply accept that possibly you misplaced the election.

And boy, did he not take it.

Rosin: What did you guys assume? Had been you stunned by that second?

Leibovich: I imply, he doesn’t do remorse. He doesn’t do, I imply, trying again, he doesn’t definitely do apologies, that type of factor. Though, once more, I do assume I might have beloved to have heard Kamala Harris do a—I imply, she did her factor, like, “I used to be within the Senate that day”; she did a private remembrance; however at a few factors in the course of the debate, I used to be type of wishing that she would simply step again and take a look at him and into the microphone and say, “Are you critical?”

Like, you really thought this was like a day that celebrated you? That’s why I type of want that there have been two mics on on the similar time. There might have been extra of an interaction, which I feel she might have benefited from.

However yeah, no, I imply, something January 6–associated, he sounds ridiculous.

Rosin: She did have an excellent line about, or a repeated line about, him promoting out democracy. Now, possibly that doesn’t play with folks, however she talked about that by way of the sturdy males. “Robust males.” Viktor Orbán. They’re sturdy.

Godfrey: Are so sturdy.

Rosin: She talked about it by way of January 6. I’m undecided if that type of abstraction lands with folks.

So possibly you’re proper. You simply have to say one thing as easy as, like, minimize it. Like everyone knows what occurred that day, you already know.

Okay, post-debate. So the controversy occurred. It appears like all people, Republicans included, are appearing as if Kamala Harris received the controversy. Trump was off his sport. Does it matter?

What has modified post-debate? Like, what issues are not attainable? I’ll throw one out, which is that Kamala Harris is now impressed in our minds as somebody who may be president, who can converse like a president, who can converse on a nationwide stage. I’m positive there are many individuals who weren’t positive about that earlier than this, or who didn’t know, possibly, like, hadn’t—I haven’t seen her converse or something like that.

Godfrey: Yeah, I feel earlier than this, I had written—many individuals had written—that she isn’t excellent at extemporaneous talking, that she’s good on a teleprompter, she’s good at rallies, however we haven’t actually seen her do these sorts of reside occasions the place she speaks intelligently, the place she speaks clearly. And this was the final word check of that.

And I feel now, we’ll not write these items questioning that anymore, proper? I imply, you may query her solutions, however I feel she has demonstrated this capacity to talk in a presidential manner and, crucially, to react to Trump and never be rattled. To be onstage with him and be amused fairly than rattled.

Rosin: And why does that matter? Type of, what does that change in the long run? I see that it adjustments, it type of eliminates a criticism of her, however does that criticism matter to people who find themselves voting?

Godfrey: This debate was not for individuals who already form of know the place their allegiances lie. This debate was for swing voters. I feel swing voters, no less than many ladies, need to see much less of the “They’re consuming canine in Ohio” discuss and extra form of coverage discuss, extra calmness, extra stability in a pacesetter.

I feel they acquired that. So is that persuasive? I’m undecided. So I assume we will’t reply the query of whether or not it’s efficient but, possibly, however I feel it helps. I feel it helps with the overall picture of Kamala Harris as a candidate, which can assist swing voters make up their minds.

Leibovich: I feel it was undoubtedly useful to Kamala Harris. I imply, I feel she received the controversy. I feel she imprinted very effectively as somebody who might be president, that folks, I feel, in all probability, assume higher of. Nevertheless, I keep in mind, you already know, all of us have been declaring Hillary Clinton the winner of all three debates in 2016.

There’s a motive no lady’s ever been elected president of this nation. I’ve type of misplaced a variety of confidence in my capacity to learn how Individuals watch this stuff. I do know that, very often, the bubble that all of us reside in as reporters, as media folks, simply as individuals who take note of the stuff, isn’t consultant of what number of, many—if not most—Individuals watch it.

So I feel humility is so as, however I feel the encouragement that the Harris persons are projecting is certainly merited.

Rosin: In order folks have watched politics, and we at all times are prognosticating, like, what sticks? The place’s there a bump? How lengthy does the bump final? What would you be looking forward to after the controversy?

Godfrey: Effectively, one factor I’m watching, one thing that occurred proper after the controversy, was Taylor Swift endorsed Kamala.

Rosin: I used to be going to ask you about that, however then I’m like, It’s so sexist. Why am I asking Elaine? Shouldn’t I—

Godfrey: I like Taylor Swift. Don’t ask—

Leibovich: I like Taylor Swift too.

Rosin: He doesn’t even know who she is.

Godfrey: He’s by no means heard of her.

Leibovich: Come on, guys!

Godfrey: I’m a giant Swift fan. So I really feel certified to talk on this. My assumption is there was some behind—

Rosin: By the way in which, I knew that. I’m not being sexist.

Godfrey: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Thanks. Um, no, my assumption is there was some behind-the-scenes planning happening right here, as a result of as quickly as she endorsed Kamala Harris—it was as quickly as the controversy was over—Harris gave a post-debate speech in entrance of some supporters, walked off the stage to a Taylor Swift track, after which instantly in her on-line merch store, there have been friendship bracelets you possibly can purchase for Kamala Harris, which as everyone knows is a Taylor Swift factor now. And so I feel that was an attention-grabbing transfer.

I might think about that they timed the announcement to increase the honeymoon, to form of say, Okay, the controversy was good. Let’s do that announcement. We’ll get it on the market. We’ll preserve it going. I assume I’m watching within the subsequent few weeks: Do they do one thing collectively? Is there any extra interaction between Taylor and Kamala?

And in that case, how painful is it to observe? Is it very cringey? Is it enjoyable? Like, form of, what, how do they use one another going ahead, if in any respect? In any other case, I assume I’m ballot numbers and swing states. I’m trying on the swing voters. Did your impression of Kamala Harris change after that? Or of Donald Trump change after the controversy?

Leibovich: Yeah, I feel I in all probability don’t look as a lot to, like, shorter-term numbers as a result of I imply, post-debate stuff is—because the politics folks say—“noisy,” that means, you form of go by fast impressions and so forth, after which it type of ranges out. However I do assume that that is one other overused time period today, permission construction.

I feel there’s a type of low-grade acceptance of Kamala Harris as a critical statesman-like—stateswoman-like—determine in our politics that I feel over time will develop into extra regular and I feel simpler to vote for.

Rosin: Robust lady.

Leibovich: She’s a powerful lady. It’s good to be a powerful lady and a powerful man.

Rosin: Okay, very last thing: Elaine, which Taylor Swift track? So simply think about for your self, like, cat-lady Swift—everybody go take a look at the Insta photograph—cat-lady Swift and Kamala stroll out onstage; what’s the track?

Godfrey: What Taylor Swift track …

Leibovich: What if I identify a track?

Godfrey: Mark, you don’t even know.

Leibovich: It’s been a “merciless summer season” for Donald Trump, I’ll let you know that a lot.

Godfrey: I form of really feel prefer it’s “Who’s Afraid of Little Previous Me?”

Leibovich: Fairly good.

Rosin: Okay. We now have a winner.

Godfrey: You don’t even know that track.

Leibovich: I do, too. “Who’s afraid of little outdated me?” Oh, how about this? “I Knew You Had been Bother.”

Godfrey: Yeah, that’s good, too.

Leibovich: Not dangerous. “Look—

Godfrey: “What You Made Me Do,” Mark.

Rosin: That’s Trump’s track for this debate.

Leibovich: Really, you already know what Trump’s track is? “Don’t Blame Me.”

Godfrey: Perhaps her track is “The Smallest Man Who Ever Lived.”

Rosin: [Laughs.]

Leibovich: That might be. Is that truly the identify of a track?

Godfrey: Sure, Mark!

Leibovich: How about this? This might really be fairly good. There’s a track “ME!”

Rosin: Clearly Trump.

Godfrey: That’s his track. It’s additionally the worst in her catalog.

Leibovich: You’re so highschool.

Godfrey: [Laughs.]

Leibovich: You’re my “Anti-Hero,” Elaine.

Rosin: Alright, that’s it. Thanks, Mark. Thanks, Elaine, for becoming a member of me.

Leibovich: “Are You Prepared For It?”

Godfrey: [Laughs.] Mark’s nonetheless in it. That’s sufficient. Thanks, Hanna.

Leibovich: “Smallest Man Who Ever Lived” is sweet.

Godfrey: No, it’s actually good.

[Music]

Rosin: This episode was produced by Kevin Townsend and edited by Claudine Ebeid. It was engineered by Rob Smierciak. Claudine Ebeid is the chief producer of Atlantic audio, and Andrea Valdez is our managing editor.

And only a heads up: Since we’re publishing this episode a day early, on Wednesday, we received’t have an episode on Thursday. I’m Hanna Rosin. Thanks for listening.