She Received the Psychological Battle However…

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

Probably the most acceptable 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 “tough time processing” that he truly 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 practically 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 proper Taylor Swift tune to seize this political second?)

---

The next is a transcript of the episode:

Hanna Rosin: So, folks usually say that presidential debates don’t actually transfer the needle, until one thing goes improper. We’ve had two debates this election. The primary one mattered as a result of one thing went improper for Biden. Right this moment, we’re going to speak about why this one additionally mattered. As a result of it went very improper 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 right this moment, 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 talk. 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 suppose Democrats are actually?

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

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

Rosin: Properly, like, truly. 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: complete catastrophe for Biden.

Everybody knew it. You recognize, inside 5 minutes. After which: a summer time 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 via it very vividly. However, no: So the occasions that occurred on June 27, I consider it was, resulted in a sequence response that, as everyone knows, ended up in Biden dropping out, Harris changing into the nominee, and quite a lot of momentum. Which gave the impression to be flagging a bit bit for Harris.

However, you already know, if it was, you’d think about it has picked proper again up once more after final night time’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 instantly. I had paused my Roku so I might ensure that to get the handshake. And like, I used to be getting popcorn prepared. I used to be getting all the things 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 seemed very displeased.

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

Rosin: In what means? As a result of, Mark, you truly talked about to me earlier than the talk that you simply 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 house. I imply, don’t underestimate the facility of house and space-taking and house invasion and all that.

And he didn’t fairly know the best way to react. It was an ungainly encounter. However she was accountable 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 couple of minutes of the talk, 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 nasty notice.

Rosin: Mhm. So on a latest episode of this present, George Conway was on, and we talked in regards to the express 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 staff of psychological professionals to advise them the best way to get below Trump’s pores and skin.

I imply, I bought the sensation that perhaps that they had employed a staff 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 type of nervous at first. She rapidly type of bought it collectively, after which instantly projected that she was about to begin doing plenty of this stuff, like, baiting him. And that projection, I feel, took the type of her attempting to make this type of confused-slash-disgusted face at him each time she might. Like, it was as if her staff had suggested her to make like, probably the most meme-worthy expression doable when she was taking a look at Trump. There was one level the place she put her hand below her chin and checked out him sideways. In fact, 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 fascinating, 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 in some way, yesterday, that ingredient of try-hard was lacking, prefer it was simply perhaps 40 levels extra pure than it normally is. And so the memes this morning, there have been about 80 completely different faces that she made. So you already know, you could possibly simply run the Kamala faces taking a look at him. Whereas—I wager you observed this, Mark—did he have 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 digital camera. Uh, once you have a look at her or don’t have a look at her, that will likely be evident on digital camera.’

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. Moreover that, type of—

Leibovich: —when he spoke.

Rosin: Moreover 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 talk turned and she or he 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 talk. What’s her greatest weak point? First, she says, you already know, “I prosecuted.” Then she talks about him killing the border-security invoice.

You recognize, 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, growth, what does he say two minutes later?

Godfrey: Rallies aren’t lame!

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

Rosin: And that was the tip. I imply, that was the tip. It type of all went downhill from there. So once you guys have been watching the talk, 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 she or he type 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 would like 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 talk, 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 suppose, you already know, you want George Conway’s three or 4 psychological specialists to know the best way to get below his pores and skin.

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

Godfrey: Properly, I feel that we have been anticipating him to go in speaking about—at the least, there was one story saying, “He’s going to go after her prosecutorial report.” 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 an enormous, 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 so much—and we’ll most likely get extra to this—one of many questions that Trump bought was about abortion. Which, you already know, clearly it’s a very uncomfortable subject 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: Certainly one of my favourite moments was when the moderator calmly corrected him and mentioned, “Oh, executing infants will not be 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 moving into? And the way shut did every of them get? That’s in a minute.

[Break]

Rosin: What have been every of the candidate’s targets going into the talk? 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 must do? She wanted to set off Trump. So she did that. We’ve coated that.

Godfrey: I feel she wanted to come back in and present that she will communicate off script, and that she will snort at him and keep a way of type of maturity over him.

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

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

Rosin: It’s true. She didn’t sound something like she will generally 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 “completely satisfied warrior”-ish on this setting. She seemed 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 canines.

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

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

Rosin: Sure. I’m extra persistently shocked 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 true now, or I don’t know if that’s her and simply type of the house she inhabits. As a result of she’s extra of, like, a third-culture child with plenty of, you already know, combined type of ethnic heritage.

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

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

Rosin: Mm hmm. What about his different said objective, which was tying Harris to Biden? That was an enormous factor that he was speculated to be doing. How did he do with that?

Godfrey: So, his closing remarks have been, I feel, his simplest of the night time, which have been: If you wish to do all this stuff, why haven’t you performed 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 suppose he couldn’t resolve whether or not he needed to tie Harris to Biden or say “Biden hates you.” You recognize—

Leibovich: —that was bizarre.

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

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

Godfrey: Properly, the moderators did a superb 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 needed Ukraine to win the battle 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 after they requested him if he would veto an abortion ban. They mentioned, J. D. Vance, your operating mate, mentioned you’d veto an abortion ban if it got here throughout your desk. And he mainly mentioned, I don’t know that man.

You recognize, 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 understand it.

Rosin: You recognize, usually 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, depend the variety of occasions 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 battle wouldn’t have occurred. It was odd, as a foreign-policy building, to persistently discuss his private relationships with, basically, dictators. Yeah.

Godfrey: And, two factors on that. He seems to suppose 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 battle. Which I believed was a really, uh, humorous level to make. And I’d have appreciated 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, perhaps it is a naive expectation, however even with immigration, you already know, no one says the apparent. Immigrants don’t trigger crime. You recognize, immigrants usually tend to be employed.

You recognize, this factor that he says consistently at his rallies about how they’re sending us their legal immigrants. Like, there’s no fundamental, defensive immigration coverage. After which the exceptional second in regards to 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 may 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 talk, I imply, there have been many moments the place Kamala Harris, I type of wished would step exterior herself and say, “Wait a minute. You probably did all the things doable to kill Obamacare. You spent months attempting to do it. You virtually did. I used to be within the Senate. You bear in mind this, or perhaps you bear in mind this.”

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

Rosin: It’s true as a result of folks do misremember his particular report, like what he did by way of coverage. Okay, one final element in regards to the debate. I used to be watching this intently as a result of I’m doing an enormous podcast venture 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 rebel, very shocking to me.

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

And boy, did he not take it.

Rosin: What did you guys suppose? Had been you shocked 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 suppose I’d have liked 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 throughout the debate, I used to be type of wishing that she would simply step again and have a look at him and into the microphone and say, “Are you critical?”

Like, you truly 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 a superb line about, or a repeated line about, him promoting out democracy. Now, perhaps that doesn’t play with folks, however she talked about that by way of the sturdy males. “Sturdy 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 perhaps you’re proper. You simply must say one thing as easy as, like, lower it. Like everyone knows what occurred that day, you already know.

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

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

Godfrey: Yeah, I feel earlier than this, I had written—many individuals had written—that she isn’t superb 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 dwell occasions the place she speaks intelligently, the place she speaks clearly. And this was the last 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 capability to talk in a presidential means and, crucially, to react to Trump and never be rattled. To be onstage with him and be amused moderately than rattled.

Rosin: And why does that matter? Type of, what does that change in the long run? I see that it modifications, 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 type of know the place their allegiances lie. This debate was for swing voters. I feel swing voters, at the least many ladies, need to see much less of the “They’re consuming canines in Ohio” discuss and extra type of coverage discuss, extra calmness, extra stability in a pacesetter.

I feel they bought that. So is that persuasive? I’m undecided. So I suppose we are able to’t reply the query of whether or not it’s efficient but, perhaps, however I feel it helps. I feel it helps with the final 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 talk. I feel she imprinted very effectively as somebody who might be president, that folks, I feel, most likely, suppose higher of. Nevertheless, I bear 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 girl’s ever been elected president of this nation. I’ve type of misplaced plenty of confidence in my capability to learn how People 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, will not be consultant of what number of, many—if not most—People watch it.

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

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

Godfrey: Properly, one factor I’m watching, one thing that occurred proper after the talk, 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 really 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 an enormous 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 occurring right here, as a result of as quickly as she endorsed Kamala Harris—it was as quickly as the talk was over—Harris gave a post-debate speech in entrance of some supporters, walked off the stage to a Taylor Swift tune, after which instantly in her on-line merch store, there have been friendship bracelets you could possibly purchase for Kamala Harris, which as everyone knows is a Taylor Swift factor now. And so I feel that was an fascinating transfer.

I’d think about that they timed the announcement to increase the honeymoon, to type of say, Okay, the talk was good. Let’s do that announcement. We’ll get it on the market. We’ll hold it going. I suppose 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, type of, what, how do they use one another going ahead, if in any respect? In any other case, I suppose I’m taking a look at 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 talk?

Leibovich: Yeah, I feel I most likely 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,” which means, you type of go by fast impressions and so forth, after which it type of ranges out. However I do suppose that that is one other overused time period lately, 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 turn into extra regular and I feel simpler to vote for.

Rosin: Sturdy girl.

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

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

Godfrey: What Taylor Swift tune …

Leibovich: What if I title a tune?

Godfrey: Mark, you don’t even know.

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

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

Leibovich: Fairly good.

Rosin: Okay. We’ve got a winner.

Godfrey: You don’t even know that tune.

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

Godfrey: Yeah, that’s good, too.

Leibovich: Not unhealthy. “Look—

Godfrey: “What You Made Me Do,” Mark.

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

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

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

Rosin: [Laughs.]

Leibovich: That might be. Is that really the title of a tune?

Godfrey: Sure, Mark!

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

Rosin: Clearly Trump.

Godfrey: That’s his tune. 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 nice.

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 manager 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.