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 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 almost all of them. The outcome 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 precise Taylor Swift music 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 mistaken. We’ve had two debates this election. The primary one mattered as a result of one thing went mistaken for Biden. Right now, we’re going to speak about why this one additionally mattered. As a result of it went very mistaken for Trump. Like, even many Republicans stated that.

They have been spinning a loss earlier than it was over. I’m Hanna Rosin. That is Radio Atlantic. And right now, 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 significantly better place. That seems like eons in the past that we did that.

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

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

Everybody knew it. You already know, inside 5 minutes. After which: a summer time that folks will write books about for, I believe, years.

Godfrey: Nope.

Leibovich: Nonetheless, I’ll skim a e book about it as a result of, you realize, all of us lived by 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 turning into the nominee, and an excessive amount of momentum. Which appeared to be flagging slightly bit for Harris.

However, you realize, if it was, you’ll think about it has picked proper again up once more after final evening’s debate—which I believe she gained 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 immediately. I had paused my Roku so I might ensure to get the handshake. And like, I used to be getting popcorn prepared. I used to be getting every thing 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 believe, for the remainder of the controversy.

Rosin: In what means? As a result of, Mark, you truly talked about to me earlier than the controversy 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 area. I imply, don’t underestimate the ability 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 stated, “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 controversy, he appeared slightly bit off steadiness. I imply, she appeared extra nervous than off steadiness.

However it was nearly as if he was regretting or second-guessing or seething. One thing about, I believe, that first encounter actually set him off on a nasty be aware.

Rosin: Mhm. So on a current 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 making an attempt out on the Democratic Nationwide Conference. Conway stated on that episode that he had informed the Democrats they need to rent a staff of psychological professionals to advise them learn how to get below Trump’s pores and skin.

I imply, I bought the sensation that possibly they’d 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 stated, she appeared type of nervous at first. She shortly 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 believe, took the type of her making an attempt 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, 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 making an attempt to create memes, like she’s a try-hard with the memes. However by some means, yesterday, that component of try-hard was lacking, prefer it was simply possibly 40 levels extra pure than it normally is. And so the memes this morning, there have been about 80 totally different faces that she made. So you realize, you would simply run the Kamala faces him. Whereas—I guess you observed this, Mark—did he take a look at her as soon as?

Leibovich: No, he didn’t in any respect. And, you realize, 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 realize, your resting face goes to be on digital camera. Uh, once you take a look at her or don’t take a look at her, that can be evident on digital camera.’

She clearly was nicely ready. And I believe additionally—and I don’t know if I ought to say this, however I’ll say it anyway. She clearly was nicely 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 nearly what killed him within the final debate. Apart from that, type 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 facet.

Rosin: For me, like, [when] the controversy turned and he or she was making an attempt 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 greatest weak spot? First, she says, you realize, “I prosecuted.” Then she talks about him killing the border-security invoice.

You already know, 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 are usually not lame!

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

Rosin: And that was the top. I imply, that was the top. It type of all went downhill from there. So once 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: “Folks 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 realize, 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 realize, some huge cash. And he, you realize, 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, they’d 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 realize, you want George Conway’s three or 4 psychological specialists 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 large” however to get again to the immigration query, which is her weak spot. So what have been the alternatives he missed by continuously taking the bait?

Godfrey: Effectively, I believe that we have been anticipating him to go in speaking about—at the very least, there was one story saying, “He’s going to go after her prosecutorial file.” 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 in no way him attacking her for something.

I imply, he had tons of room to additionally say, “Hey, you didn’t reply that query about, you realize, your pivot on fracking, your pivot on Medicare for All, et cetera. As a result of she didn’t, actually. And he might have referred to as her on it. And he didn’t as a result of he was too busy distracted by his personal, you realize, 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 realize, I believe one factor that helped Harris loads—and we’ll in all probability get extra to this—one of many questions that Trump bought was about abortion. Which, you realize, clearly it’s a very uncomfortable problem for him, as he’s proven by his going, you realize, any variety of instructions on it in the previous couple of weeks.

After which he begins speaking, you realize, 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 stated, “Oh, executing infants shouldn’t 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 stepping 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 objectives going into the controversy? Like, let’s simply take into consideration what they have been making an attempt 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 coated that.

Godfrey: I believe she wanted to return in and present that she will be able to converse off script, and that she will be able to giggle at him and keep a way of type 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 slightly shaky. However she bought it collectively fairly shortly. I used to be shocked, frankly, as a result of simply so a lot of her off-the-cuff moments are so foolish. So lots of the issues she says are so phrase salad-y.

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

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

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

Godfrey: Oh no.

Leibovich: I don’t imply to be, no. I simply wish to say that when she is prosecutorial in a debate—as she was in 2019 towards Biden—she will be able to appear slightly intimidating, slightly off-putting. She appeared extra “joyful warrior”-ish on this setting. She seemed like she was having enjoyable. I believe 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 stated “Speak about excessive.”

Rosin: It was the canine.

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

Godfrey: And it was identical to—I imply, to your level earlier about her typically making an attempt 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 good 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 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 plenty of, you realize, blended type of ethnic heritage.

However it simply wasn’t an enormous deal on this debate. Gender’s simply not—doesn’t look like—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 already know, hit your points like immigration, the financial system. Uh, I believe he failed on all these issues.

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

Godfrey: So, his closing remarks have been, I believe, his simplest of the evening, which have been: If you wish to do all this stuff, why haven’t you accomplished 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 taking note of you anymore. And I additionally assume he couldn’t determine whether or not he needed to tie Harris to Biden or say “Biden hates you.” You already know—

Leibovich: —that was bizarre.

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

Rosin: So, we do not actually get a lot coverage in these debates, however I wish 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 realize, they tried. Uh, the factor that caught with me—one of many moments—I believe, was Trump wouldn’t say whether or not he needed Ukraine to win the warfare towards Russia. I assumed it was good that the moderators requested him once more after he dodged the query, and he dodged it once more. Making his, you realize, 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 believe, was once they requested him if he would veto an abortion ban. They stated, J. D. Vance, your operating mate, stated you’ll veto an abortion ban if it got here throughout your desk. And he mainly stated, I don’t know that man.

You already know, 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 comprehend it.

Rosin: You already know, typically when he talked about both coverage points and particularly overseas coverage, like Ukraine and Gaza, I had in thoughts what Invoice Clinton stated, which was: Depend 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 warfare wouldn’t have occurred. It was odd, as a foreign-policy development, to persistently speak about his private relationships with, basically, dictators. Yeah.

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

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

Godfrey: —is a really, very robust man.

Godfrey: The opposite factor was his level about wanting, that if he was president-elect, he might finish the Russia-Ukraine warfare. Which I assumed was a really, uh, humorous level to make. And I’d 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 assumed that was enjoyable.

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

You already know, this factor that he says continuously 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 Reasonably priced 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 believe that could be a line that folks will use in many various methods.

Godfrey: Oh God, it’s throughout social media. All people’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 exterior herself and say, “Wait a minute. You probably did every thing attainable to kill Obamacare. You spent months making an attempt to do it. You nearly 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 top of medical insurance for, you realize, tens of millions and tens of millions of Individuals.

Rosin: It’s true as a result of folks do misremember his particular file, like what he did when it comes to coverage. Okay, one final element in regards to the debate. I used to be watching this carefully 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 riot, very shocking to me.

Rosin: He goes forwards and backwards in when he leans in and leans out to, you realize, they’re political prisoners, you realize; that day was an excellent 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 stated, Hey, these days you’ve been type of making an attempt to simply accept that possibly you misplaced the election.

And boy, did he not take it.

Rosin: What did you guys assume? Have 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 assume I’d have cherished 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 through 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 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 identical time. There might have been extra of an interaction, which I believe 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 when it comes to the robust males. “Sturdy males.” Viktor Orbán. They’re robust.

Godfrey: Are so robust.

Rosin: She talked about it when it comes to January 6. I’m unsure if that type of abstraction lands with folks.

So possibly you’re proper. You simply have to say one thing as simple as, like, lower it. Like everyone knows what occurred that day, you realize.

Okay, post-debate. So the controversy occurred. It seems like all people, Republicans included, are performing as if Kamala Harris gained 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 will be president, who can converse like a president, who can converse 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, possibly, like, hadn’t—I haven’t seen her converse or something like that.

Godfrey: Yeah, I believe 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 stay occasions the place she speaks intelligently, the place she speaks clearly. And this was the final word check of that.

And I believe now, we’ll not write these items questioning that anymore, proper? I imply, you may query her solutions, however I believe 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 relatively than rattled.

Rosin: And why does that matter? Kind 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 believe swing voters, at the very least many ladies, wish to see much less of the “They’re consuming canine in Ohio” discuss and extra type of coverage discuss, extra calmness, extra stability in a frontrunner.

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

Leibovich: I believe it was undoubtedly useful to Kamala Harris. I imply, I believe she gained the controversy. I believe she imprinted very nicely as somebody who may very well be president, that folks, I believe, in all probability, assume higher of. Nonetheless, I keep in mind, you realize, 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 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, shouldn’t be consultant of what number of, many—if not most—Individuals watch it.

So I believe humility is so as, however I believe the encouragement that the Harris persons 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 waiting for 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 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 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 music, after which instantly in her on-line merch store, there have been friendship bracelets you would purchase for Kamala Harris, which as everyone knows is a Taylor Swift factor now. And so I believe that was an attention-grabbing transfer.

I’d think about that they timed the announcement to increase the honeymoon, to type of say, Okay, the controversy was good. Let’s do that announcement. We’ll get it on the market. We’ll hold 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, type 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 believe 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,” which means, you type 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 as of late, permission construction.

I believe there’s a type of low-grade acceptance of Kamala Harris as a critical statesman-like—stateswoman-like—determine in our politics that I believe over time will develop into extra regular and I believe 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 music? 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 music?

Godfrey: What Taylor Swift music …

Leibovich: What if I identify a music?

Godfrey: Mark, you don’t even know.

Leibovich: It’s been a “merciless summer time” for Donald Trump, I’ll let you know 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 have now a winner.

Godfrey: You don’t even know that music.

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

Godfrey: Yeah, that’s good, too.

Leibovich: Not unhealthy. “Look—

Godfrey: “What You Made Me Do,” Mark.

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

Leibovich: Really, you realize what Trump’s music is? “Don’t Blame Me.”

Godfrey: Possibly her music is “The Smallest Man Who Ever Lived.”

Rosin: [Laughs.]

Leibovich: That may very well be. Is that really the identify of a music?

Godfrey: Sure, Mark!

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

Rosin: Clearly Trump.

Godfrey: That’s his music. 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 gained’t have an episode on Thursday. I’m Hanna Rosin. Thanks for listening.