Dem
49
GOP
51
The supporters of Donald Trump absolutely hate the fact that he lost his debate with Kamala Harris. And so, they continue to search for explanations and excuses. The latest conspiracy theory is a real corker, namely that ABC effectively gave Harris all the questions before the debate, while also agreeing to avoid any subjects she found uncomfortable, like Joe Biden's age.
The key conduit of information for this theory is an eX-Twitter user named BLACK INSURRECTIONIST. Actually, his full name is BLACK INSURRECTIONIST--I FOLLOW BACK TRUE PATRIOTS, but to his friends he's just BLACK INSURRECTIONIST. He claims that he was in contact with an ABC employee, who eventually provided a 5-page affidavit attesting to all the various ways in which ABC put its finger on the scale for Harris. If you would like to see the affidavit, as provided by BLACK INSURRECTIONIST, it is here. You will perhaps notice that the writing and grammar are rather poor for someone who purports to work in the news industry. In fact, they are rather poor for any native English speaker. That said, not everyone is a great writer.
Of course, it might give the story greater credibility if this ABC insider spoke to ANYONE besides BLACK INSURRECTIONIST. But—darn the luck!—that's not going to be possible. See, in a remarkable coincidence, the person already widely known among right-wingers as "the ABC whistleblower" died in a car crash this weekend. A car crash that, incidentally, no law enforcement agency has any record of. If all of this sounds perfectly credible to you, then let us know, because have we got a "cryptocurrency" investment opportunity for you.
Anyhow, if others are still talking about the debate, despite its having been a week ago, it means we don't feel too bad that we are still talking about the debate. We got a lot of interesting comments from readers and, as promised, we're going to share a few of those right now:
P.S. in Portland, ME, writes: My stepmother of 40 years was an incredibly difficult person for me to be around. At one of the inevitable family events that brought everyone together—bar mitzvahs, graduations, weddings, etc.—I asked my biological mother, who had a wisdom that ran deep, "How do you stand being around her?" And she said, "I just feel so sorry for her."
When watching a review of Kamala Harris' facial expressions at the debate, one jumped out at me—pity. For a moment, she felt sorry for him, and there is reason for it. Trump is clearly mentally ill, to a degree that only stems from a terrible upbringing. He is 78 years old and still trying to please his long-gone authoritarian father. He never has been and never will be happy. It is not all that hard to take pity on him. On the other hand, let's not go too far, as perhaps all dictators and fascists are mentally ill.
Anyway, this thought process led me to a prediction. Harris will win the election and to make Trump go away quietly; the Biden administration, along with the governors of New York and Georgia, will make a deal to pardon him provided he agrees to never run for public office again. Of course, Joe Biden's son will be pardoned at the same time. This scenario could be the best outcome for our country and the world. Time to move on.
D.A.Y. in Troy, MI, writes: The best analogy for what Kamala Harris did to Donald Trump in the debate was box him into a corner. From going to his podium—literally cornering him—to shake his hand when it was clear he had no intention to reciprocate, to using her first response to attack one of his core messages, she made sure to put him on the defensive and never let him out of the corner.
Trump is terrible at being on the defense. His id needs to be on the attack. Harris knew this and blunted every attempt he made to mount an offensive to turn it back into him having to defend himself.
While the Republicans got their dander up about the fact-checking, it was seldom and was saved for his most inflammatory lies—like Haitian immigrants eating pets, where it would be journalistic maleficence (and potentially dangerous) to let them be out there on global television unchallenged.
However, the debate was more about Trump imploding than Harris' effectiveness. People are still asking for specifics from her (though I think she could provide a doctoral thesis on her plans for the nation and people would still be demanding specifics). She wants another debate, while Trump wants none of it. Likely, Harris would want a second debate formatted for longer-form answers where she could talk shop, but longer-form answers would make it more likely for Trump to fall apart faster like he does at his rallies. Trump is in a lose-lose situation. He lost this debate, and another debate would likely be even worse for him.
The summary is it was a good night for Harris and a bad night for Trump. Though the votes are what matters. As with the debate, Harris needs to stay on the attack and not let Trump out of the corner. Hillary Clinton's worst mistake was easing off the gas in the Midwest to chase waterfalls in Texas and let Trump slip away there. Harris appears to not be making that mistake.
R.M.S. in Lebanon CT, writes: I think the key thing this debate revealed was how skilled Kamala Harris is at trolling Donald Trump. She is the most effective politician I have ever seen at trolling him, and she got him to rant about random, irrelevant things like crowd sizes at his events or unsubstantiated rumors of Haitians eating pets in Ohio. It was a masterclass in provocation.
I have recently done some of my own trolling of Trumpers in my area in ways that make a difference. There is a priest in Montville, CT, who, during his masses, slut-shames people who have abortions. He also has insulting signs on his property about abortion. So, to get under his skin, I went on Planned Parenthood's website and made a donation to them. There is an option to make a donation in someone's honor, and they also will send a postcard to that person's address notifying them a donation was made in their honor. I did this to him last week, and I can visualize his gnashing his teeth over it.
About a year ago, Chelsea Handler made a clip for The Daily Show discussing being a childless woman. If Taylor Swift did something similar and tweeted it to Trump and Vance they would go ballistic.
R.W. in Brooklyn, NY, writes: My theory on why Trump said he has "the concept of a plan": He's vaguely familiar with the phrase "proof of concept" (having heard Dr. Fauci use it repeatedly) and even more vaguely knows it's a good thing to have. But the enraged squirrels chittering loudly in his head kept him from spitting it out correctly and so we got "concept of a plan."
A.R. in Los Angeles, CA, writes: A good friend summed up the debate like this: She's great, he's nuts. To expand on that a bit, even with all the well-deserved plaudits, I still think Harris is being undersold.
To me, what we witnessed was the equivalent of Tom Brady bringing his team back from 31 points down with 8 minutes left in the 3rd quarter in Super Bowl LI. And the stakes are even higher than that. Even this site, which is not known for hyperbole, conceded that the debate could be the most consequential in presidential history. Now compound that pressure with the knowledge that the fate of the free world rests on your shoulders, because if your opponent gets in office, the most powerful country on earth will be in the hands of a self-professed dictator and Putin wannabe.
Biden collapsed under that pressure, as most of us would. I consider myself an athlete who generally performs well under pressure, but this situation would have me curled up in the fetal position rocking back and forth muttering, "Please don't make me go out there."
Not only did Harris perform, she scored the equivalent of 31 points with over half the game gone. Talk about clutch. And she made it look easy. If she can perform like that under that kind of pressure, alone on that stage, it seems to me she's ready for anything, especially when as president she'll have a team of experts around her.
And speaking of experts, she's clearly skilled at choosing the right people. She had to deliver, but her team deserves credit for prepping her superbly.
Also, a brief postscript regarding her facial expressions: It was a combination of disdain and pity, with a smattering of "how do we get grandpa to give up the car keys."
F.F. in Providence, RI, writes: I noticed a couple of (possible) preemptive tactics taken by the Harris campaign in the debate:
- The announcers noted a couple of times that the two had never actually met before Tuesday. So when Harris shook hands and introduced herself as Kamala Harris, it was a totally normal social interaction since they had never met. A side effect was that Trump couldn't mispronounce her name and was forced to use "she" and "her" (or SHE and HER) all night. Or at least Kamala was set up to correct him if he mispronounced her name. I think it was caught on Trump's mic.
- Michelle Obama's mockery of Trump's "Invisible Accordion" gesticulating forced him to expend at least a small amount of mental energy keeping his left hand by his side the whole time.
C.O. in East Lansing, MI, writes: You wrote: "Now, in Reines' view, it's all madness. 'He's all over the board,' remarked Reines. 'I think he's losing train of thought and he's just blurting out the next thing in his mind.'"
My favorite descriptor of this is that Trump is suffering from "mental incontinence." It just fits so perfectly given the complete $#!^ he spouts all the time.
C.C. in Hancock, NH, writes: I don't say this lightly: Trump is stupid. Not in every way, but in two very important aspects, he's colossally stupid.
Now, people on the left might read this and reply, "Duh, of course he's stupid. Did you only just notice that, C.C. in Hancock?" No. It's not just that he fails to grasp non-zero-sum economics. It's not just that his ideas about race calcified in the 70s. It's not just that he speaks and writes at an elementary school level. I mean, in certain ways, his critical thinking is barely better than an inanimate object.
Exhibit (1): He let Kamala Harris bait him. He knew she was going to. He was warned. Multiple times. Harris and her campaign telegraphed it blatantly. He knew he would be hurting his campaign if he took the bait. But he apparently has as much agency as water running downhill. He just couldn't help himself. I don't think he even tried to resist. She decided what she wanted him to do, and she made him do it. Inanimate objects will generally allow you to manipulate them to your will, if you apply the right forces, but not sane adults of normal intelligence.
Exhibit (2): How credulous do you have to be to hear a report from Facebook about immigrants eating other people's pets, and to just believe that, no questions, with perfect conviction? With such conviction, moreover, that you would repeat it on camera to a national audience and not expect to look like a fool? How do you hear something like that, and not wonder "How do they know their pets were eaten by other humans? Did the pet owner actually see someone cook the pet? Did they do nothing to intervene? Why isn't this on national news?
What kind of mind lets stuff like that in with no filters? That's what the GOP has nominated to lead our country.
J.C. in Binan, Laguna, Philippines, writes: I was really disgusted how the moderators—who otherwise did a great job with fact checking—kept referring to Donald Trump as "President". Emily Post is clear—as are numerous other sources—in a formal setting, he is addressed as "Mr." and referred to as "former." The use put him at an elevated level to her, and undeservedly so. She is currently the vice president. He is currently a rich white male.
We have half a dozen more; we didn't want to overdo it, so we'll hold them until Friday. We'll also wrap up bingo then; the site that has the reader responses is not working correctly at the moment. (Z)