She Gained the Psychological Battle However…

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 simple goal for dictators “who can manipulate you with flattery,” and that he was having a “troublesome time processing” that he really misplaced the final election.

Harris laid apparent traps, like saying folks left his rallies “out of exhaustion and tedium,” for instance, and he walked into practically all of them. The consequence 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 correct 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, until one thing goes incorrect. We’ve had two debates this election. The primary one mattered as a result of one thing went incorrect for Biden. Immediately, we’re going to speak about why this one additionally mattered. As a result of it went very incorrect for Trump. Like, even many Republicans mentioned that.

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

Rosin: Properly, 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. , inside 5 minutes. After which: a summer time that individuals 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 recognize, all of us lived by way of it very vividly. However, no: So the occasions that occurred on June 27, I imagine it was, resulted in a sequence response that, as everyone knows, ended up in Biden dropping out, Harris changing into the nominee, and an excessive amount of momentum. Which appeared to be flagging a bit of 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 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 positively the handshake. I used to be watching straight away. I had paused my Roku so I may be 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 actually set the tone, I believe, for the remainder of the talk.

Rosin: In what means? As a result of, Mark, you really 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 find out how to react. It was a clumsy encounter. However she was answerable for it. I imply, she mentioned, “Hello, I’m Kamala Harris.” I don’t know if she rehearsed that or not. However what was clear to me was within the first couple of minutes of the talk, he appeared a bit of bit off stability. I imply, she appeared extra nervous than off stability.

But it surely 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 foul 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 advised the Democrats they need to rent a group of psychological professionals to advise them find out how to get below Trump’s pores and skin.

I imply, I received the sensation that possibly they’d 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 rapidly type of received it collectively, after which instantly projected that she was about to start out doing plenty of these items, like, baiting him. And that projection, I believe, took the type of her attempting to make this form of confused-slash-disgusted face at him at any time when she may. Like, it was as if her group had suggested her to make like, essentially the most meme-worthy expression potential 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. After all, it took off on-line. And it was the proper 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 possibly 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 recognize, you can simply run the Kamala faces taking a look at him. Whereas—I guess you observed 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 possibly can 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, if you have a look at her or don’t have a look at her, that might 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, form of—

Leibovich: —when he spoke.

Rosin: Apart from what he spoke. But it surely 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, however it 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 recognize, “I prosecuted.” Then she talks about him killing the border-security invoice.

, 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 are usually not lame!

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

Rosin: And that was the tip. I imply, that was the tip. It form of all went downhill from there. So if 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 depart my rallies early.” It was the proper transfer for her. And he or she form of appeared to take that in and simply do it each time.

Like, after that, on the finish of each reply or non-answer that she gave, she would bait him with one thing, like, you 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 non-public assaults. And like, it was humorous, as a result of forward of the talk, 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 suppose, you recognize, you want George Conway’s three or 4 psychological specialists to know find out how 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 could be to not say “My crowds are large” however to get again to the immigration query, which is her weak point. So what have been the alternatives he missed by continually taking the bait?

Godfrey: Properly, I believe 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 by no means 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 known 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 a giant, however-many-minute-long present to him. And he simply wasted it by taking the opposite bait. I imply, you recognize, I believe one factor that helped Harris so much—and we’ll in all probability get extra to this—one of many questions that Trump received was about abortion. Which, you recognize, clearly it’s a very 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: One in all my favourite moments was when the moderator calmly corrected him and mentioned, “Oh, executing infants just isn’t authorized in any state,” after which simply moved on.

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

[Music]

Rosin: After the break, what did they should accomplish getting 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 believe she wanted to return in and present that she will be able to converse off script, and that she will be able to snort at him and keep a way of form 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 of shaky. However she received 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 lots of the issues she says are so phrase salad-y.

I believe her aim was not to try this, and she or he 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 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 a bit of intimidating, a bit of off-putting. She appeared extra “comfortable warrior”-ish on this setting. She appeared 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 mentioned “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 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 recognize, combined type of ethnic heritage.

But it surely simply wasn’t a giant deal on this debate. Gender’s simply not—doesn’t seem to be—an enormous factor hanging over this election. What about Trump? So the query was: What have been their 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. , hit your points like immigration, the financial system. Uh, I believe he failed on all these issues.

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

Godfrey: So, his closing remarks have been, I believe, his handiest of the night time, which have been: If you wish to do all these items, why haven’t you achieved them? You’re actually within the White Home proper now.

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

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 greatest associates or are we enemies?” So I form of suppose he failed on that. He may have achieved higher. That was an enormous missed alternative.

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

Godfrey: Properly, the moderators did 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 believe, was Trump wouldn’t say whether or not he needed Ukraine to win the battle in opposition to 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 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 believe, was after they requested him if he would veto an abortion ban. They mentioned, J. D. Vance, your operating mate, mentioned you’ll veto an abortion ban if it got here throughout your desk. And he principally mentioned, I don’t know that man.

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

So they 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 battle wouldn’t have occurred. It was odd, as a foreign-policy building, to persistently discuss his private relationships with, primarily, dictators. Yeah.

Godfrey: And, two factors on that. He seems to suppose strongman means “very robust 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 paradoxically. He makes use of it actually prefer it’s “a robust 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 may finish the Russia-Ukraine battle. Which I believed was a really, uh, humorous level to make. And I might have favored the moderators to say, “How would you try this with out being president?”

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

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

, this factor that he says continually at his rallies about how they’re sending us their legal immigrants. Like, there’s no primary, defensive immigration coverage. After which the outstanding second in regards to the Inexpensive Care Act.

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

Rosin: I believe that could be a line that individuals 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 talk, I imply, there have been many moments the place Kamala Harris, I type of wished would step outdoors herself and say, “Wait a minute. You probably did every little thing potential to kill Obamacare. You spent months attempting 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 tip of medical health insurance for, you recognize, hundreds of thousands and hundreds of thousands of Individuals.

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

Rosin: He goes backwards and forwards in when he leans in and leans out to, you recognize, they’re political prisoners, you recognize; that day was a wonderful revolution. He has these days leaned away from it, like on the Republican Nationwide Conference. There simply wasn’t a lot discuss this. The moderators gave him an out. They mentioned, Hey, these days you’ve been form of attempting to just accept that possibly 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, wanting again, he doesn’t definitely do apologies, that type of factor. Though, once more, I do suppose I might 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 through 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 really thought this was like a day that celebrated you? That’s why I type of want that there have been two mics on on the similar time. There may have been extra of an interaction, which I believe she may have benefited from.

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

Rosin: She did have 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. “Robust 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 must say one thing as easy as, like, reduce it. Like everyone knows what occurred that day, you recognize.

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

What has modified post-debate? Like, what issues are not potential? 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 positive there are many individuals who weren’t positive about that earlier than this, or who didn’t know, possibly, like, hadn’t—I haven’t seen her converse or something like that.

Godfrey: Yeah, I 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 possibly can query her solutions, however I believe she has demonstrated this skill 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? Form of, what does that change in the long run? I see that it adjustments, it type of eliminates a criticism of her, however does that criticism matter to people who find themselves voting?

Godfrey: This debate was not for individuals who already form of know the place their allegiances lie. This debate was for swing voters. I believe swing voters, at the least many ladies, need to see much less of the “They’re consuming canine in Ohio” discuss and extra form of coverage discuss, extra calmness, extra stability in a pacesetter.

I believe they received 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 final picture of Kamala Harris as a candidate, which is able to assist swing voters make up their minds.

Leibovich: I believe it was positively useful to Kamala Harris. I imply, I believe she gained the talk. I believe she imprinted very nicely as somebody who might be president, that individuals, I believe, in all probability, suppose higher of. Nonetheless, I keep in mind, you recognize, all of us have been declaring Hillary Clinton the winner of all three debates in 2016.

There’s a motive no lady’s ever been elected president of this nation. I’ve type of misplaced plenty of confidence in my skill to learn how Individuals watch these items. 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, just isn’t 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 certainly merited.

Rosin: In order folks have watched politics, and we at all times are prognosticating, like, what sticks? The place’s there a bump? How lengthy does the bump final? What would you be looking forward to after the 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 a giant Swift fan. So I really feel certified to talk on this. My assumption is there was some behind—

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

Godfrey: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Thanks. Um, no, my assumption is there was some behind-the-scenes planning 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 music, after which instantly in her on-line merch store, there have been friendship bracelets you can purchase for Kamala Harris, which as everyone knows is a Taylor Swift factor now. And so I believe that was an fascinating transfer.

I might think about that they timed the announcement to increase the honeymoon, to form of say, Okay, the talk 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 if that’s the case, how painful is it to observe? Is it very cringey? Is it enjoyable? Like, form of, what, how do they use one another going ahead, if in any respect? In any other case, I assume I’m taking a look at ballot numbers and swing states. I’m wanting on the swing voters. Did your impression of Kamala Harris change after that? Or of Donald Trump change after the talk?

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 form 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 nowadays, 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: Robust lady.

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

Rosin: Okay, final thing: Elaine, which Taylor Swift music? So simply think about for your self, like, cat-lady Swift—everybody go have 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 title 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 form of really feel prefer it’s “Who’s Afraid of Little Previous Me?”

Leibovich: Fairly good.

Rosin: Okay. Now we have a winner.

Godfrey: You don’t even know that music.

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

Godfrey: Yeah, that’s good, too.

Leibovich: Not dangerous. “Look—

Godfrey: “What You Made Me Do,” Mark.

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

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

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

Rosin: [Laughs.]

Leibovich: That might be. Is that truly the title of a music?

Godfrey: Sure, Mark!

Leibovich: How about this? This might really 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.