She Won the Psychological Battle But…

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

Probably 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 “tough time processing” that he really misplaced the final election.

Harris laid apparent traps, like saying individuals 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 speak 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 tune to seize this political second?)

---

The next is a transcript of the episode:

Hanna Rosin: So, individuals typically say that presidential debates don’t actually transfer the needle, until one thing goes unsuitable. We’ve had two debates this election. The primary one mattered as a result of one thing went unsuitable for Biden. In the present day, we’re going to speak about why this one additionally mattered. As a result of it went very unsuitable 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 in the present day, 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 are actually?

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, really. Mark the second. Form of: The place are they really now?

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

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

Godfrey: Nope.

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

However, you recognize, if it was, you’ll think about it has picked proper again up once more after final night time’s debate—which I feel she gained pretty convincingly.

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

Godfrey: Oh, the primary second for me was positively the handshake. I used to be watching straight away. I had paused my Roku so I may make certain to get the handshake. And like, I used to be getting popcorn prepared. I used to be getting every little 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 appeared very displeased.

Godfrey: Simply thought that was form of … that basically 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 simply have been going to be careful for the handshake, and if you happen to 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 way to react. It was an ungainly encounter. However she was in charge of 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 just a little bit off steadiness. I imply, she appeared extra nervous than off steadiness.

Nevertheless it was nearly 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 current episode of this present, George Conway was on, and we talked in regards to 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 advised the Democrats they need to rent a group of psychological professionals to advise them the way to get below Trump’s pores and skin.

I imply, I acquired the sensation that perhaps 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 form of acquired it collectively, after which instantly projected that she was about to start out doing loads of these items, 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 each time she may. Like, it was as if her group had suggested her to make like, essentially the most meme-worthy expression doable when she was 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 aspect of try-hard was lacking, prefer it was simply perhaps 40 levels extra pure than it often is. And so the memes this morning, there have been about 80 totally different faces that she made. So you recognize, you might simply run the Kamala faces him. Whereas—I guess you seen this, Mark—did he have a look at her as soon as?

Leibovich: No, he didn’t in any respect. And, you recognize, 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 recognize, your resting face goes to be on digital camera. Uh, whenever you have a look at her or don’t have a look at her, that will probably be evident on digital camera.’

She clearly was properly 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 properly 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. In addition to that, form of—

Leibovich: —when he spoke.

Rosin: In addition to what he spoke. Nevertheless it was his resting face, which—

Leibovich: Sure, it was like, form 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 greatest weak point? First, she says, you recognize, “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, increase, what does he say two minutes later?

Godfrey: Rallies should not lame!

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

Rosin: And that was the top. I imply, that was the top. It form of all went downhill from there. So whenever 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 she or he 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 recognize, 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 recognize, some huge cash. And he, you recognize, instantly was defending himself from that. He can’t not reply to private 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 recognize, you want George Conway’s three or 4 psychological specialists to know the way to get below his pores and skin.

Rosin: And when he would reply—like, if you happen to take that immigration reply, clearly the proper political transfer could 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: Effectively, 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 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 recognize, your pivot on fracking, your pivot on Medicare for All, et cetera. As a result of she didn’t, actually. And he may have referred to as her on it. And he didn’t as a result of he was too busy distracted by his personal, you recognize, 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 recognize, I feel one factor that helped Harris rather a lot—and we’ll most likely get extra to this—one of many questions that Trump acquired was about abortion. Which, you recognize, clearly it’s a extremely uncomfortable concern for him, as he’s proven by his going, you recognize, any variety of instructions on it in the previous few weeks.

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

Rosin: Considered 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 actually 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 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 coated that.

Godfrey: I feel she wanted to come back in and present that she will be able to communicate off script, and that she will be able to chuckle at him and preserve 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 just a little shaky. However she acquired it collectively fairly shortly. I used to be stunned, 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 feel her purpose 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 feel, brilliantly—and this may 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 in opposition to Biden—she will be able to appear just a little intimidating, just a little off-putting. She appeared extra “completely satisfied warrior”-ish on this setting. She appeared 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 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 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 constantly 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 true now, or I don’t know if that’s her and simply form of the house she inhabits. As a result of she’s extra of, like, a third-culture child with loads of, you recognize, blended form of ethnic heritage.

Nevertheless 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 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 economic system. Uh, I feel he failed on all these issues.

Rosin: Mm hmm. What about his different acknowledged purpose, 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 best of the night time, which have been: If you wish to do all these items, why haven’t you finished 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 resolve whether or not he wished to tie Harris to Biden or say “Biden hates you.” You already know—

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 greatest mates or are we enemies?” So I form of assume he failed on that. He may have finished 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 speak caught with you?

Godfrey: Effectively, the moderators did a great job asking about coverage. They tried. They tried to fact-check. They, you recognize, 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 warfare in opposition to 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 recognize, 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 working mate, mentioned you’ll veto an abortion ban if it got here throughout your desk. And he principally mentioned, I don’t know that man.

You already know, he was like, “We don’t speak.”

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 already know, 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, depend the variety of instances he says “I.”

So they might 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 building, to constantly discuss his private relationships with, primarily, dictators. Yeah.

Godfrey: And, two factors on that. He seems to assume strongman means “very sturdy 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 mockingly. 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 may finish the Russia-Ukraine warfare. Which I assumed was a really, uh, humorous level to make. And I might have preferred 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 feel I had an expectation that Kamala Harris would speak just a little bit extra about a few of her insurance policies, just a little bit extra. Like, perhaps it is a naive expectation, however even with immigration, you recognize, no person says the plain. Immigrants don’t trigger crime. You already know, immigrants usually tend to be employed.

You already know, this factor that he says consistently at his rallies about how they’re sending us their felony immigrants. Like, there’s no primary, defensive immigration coverage. After which the outstanding 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 feel that may be a line that individuals 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 form of wished would step outdoors herself and say, “Wait a minute. You probably did every little thing doable to kill Obamacare. You spent months attempting to do it. You nearly 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 top of medical health insurance for, you recognize, tens of millions and tens of millions of People.

Rosin: It’s true as a result of individuals do misremember his particular file, like what he did by way of 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 challenge 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 forwards and backwards in when he leans in and leans out to, you recognize, they’re political prisoners, you recognize; 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 form of attempting to simply accept that perhaps 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 actually do apologies, that form 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 throughout the debate, I used to be form 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 really thought this was like a day that celebrated you? That’s why I form of want that there have been two mics on on the identical time. There may have been extra of an interaction, which I feel she may have benefited from.

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

Rosin: She did have a great line about, or a repeated line about, him promoting out democracy. Now, perhaps that doesn’t play with individuals, 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 unsure if that form of abstraction lands with individuals.

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

Okay, post-debate. So the controversy occurred. It seems like all people, Republicans included, are appearing 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 doable? I’ll throw one out, which is that Kamala Harris is now impressed in our minds as somebody who could 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 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 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 potential to talk in a presidential manner and, crucially, to react to Trump and never be rattled. To be onstage with him and be amused somewhat than rattled.

Rosin: And why does that matter? Form of, what does that change in the long run? I see that it modifications, it form 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, at the least many ladies, need to see much less of the “They’re consuming canines in Ohio” speak and extra form of coverage speak, extra calmness, extra stability in a frontrunner.

I feel they acquired that. So is that persuasive? I’m unsure. So I assume 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 positively useful to Kamala Harris. I imply, I feel she gained the controversy. I feel she imprinted very properly as somebody who could possibly be president, that individuals, I feel, most likely, assume higher of. Nonetheless, I bear in mind, you recognize, all of us have been declaring Hillary Clinton the winner of all three debates in 2016.

There’s a purpose no lady’s ever been elected president of this nation. I’ve form of misplaced loads of confidence in my potential to learn how People watch these items. I do know that, very often, the bubble that all of us reside in as reporters, as media individuals, 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 persons are projecting is certainly merited.

Rosin: In order individuals 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 best way, 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 tune, after which instantly in her on-line merch store, there have been friendship bracelets you might purchase for Kamala Harris, which as everyone knows is a Taylor Swift factor now. And so I feel that was an fascinating 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 maintain 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 look at? 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 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 individuals say—“noisy,” that means, you form of go by fast impressions and so forth, after which it form of ranges out. However I do assume that that is one other overused time period lately, permission construction.

I feel there’s a form 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 out to be 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, final 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 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 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 recognize what Trump’s tune is? “Don’t Blame Me.”

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

Rosin: [Laughs.]

Leibovich: That could possibly be. Is that truly the title of a tune?

Godfrey: Sure, Mark!

Leibovich: How about this? This might really 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 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.