And we’ve had a request for the dancing banana …
I had a lot of fun this morning cruising around the Web and reading the reviews. Even right-wing sites admitted it was not a good night for Trump, although most blamed the moderators for being biased. (At least one also blamed Laura Loomer.) I’m sure most folks who didn’t watch are hearing that Trump bombed.
And then there’s this. I didn’t know Drudge was still online, but I guess he is.
CNN fact-checker Daniel Dale appeared on TV screens soon after the Trump-Harris debate ended Tuesday night to give his preliminary verdict—and declared that Donald Trump had lied at least 33 times during the 90-minute face-off.
“This was a staggeringly dishonest debate performance from former President Trump,” Dale told host Jake Tapper. “Just lie after lie on subject after subject. By my preliminary count, Jake, Trump made at least 33 false claims. Thirty-three!
“By contrast, by—again—a preliminary count, Vice President Harris made at least one false claim, though she added at least a few misleading claims and a few more that lacked key context.”
Dale, who has been fact-checking Trump for years, explained that the former president’s firehose of untruths was totally unprecedented in American political history.
“I think a lot of Americans say, ‘Well, all politicians lie,’” he said. “No major presidential candidate before Donald Trump has ever lied with this kind of frequency. A remarkably large chunk of what he said tonight was just not true.”
There’s a big difference between putting a spin on data by leaving out some context, which all politicians do, and quite another to say things happened that didn’t happen, like aliens eating people’s pets in Springfield, Ohio. The claim about some states allowing an infanticide option for mothers who don’t want their babies was never true, either, even though Fetus People have been claiming that for years. (I understand it originated from the common medical practice of giving only palliative care to newborns with such severe birth defects they have absolutely no hope of survival for more than a few hours, a concept the Fetus People can’t seem to grasp.)
Trump’s other mistake is that he’s been telling his followers for weeks now that Kamala Harris isn’t very bright and wasn’t giving interviews because she can’t speak well in public. It must have been disorienting to watch this allegedly dimwitted woman mopping the floor with God Emperor Trump. But Kamala Harris probably is used to being underestimated.
Along those lines, see Jonathan Last at The Bulwark, What More Do You People Want from Kamala Harris?
Harris delivered the goods. You never know if a politician can play on the national stage until they do it. Sometimes a promising candidate pops. Sometimes they’re Ron DeSantis.
At every turn over the last seven weeks, Harris popped. From her first speech at the campaign HQ in Delaware, to the first big rally, to her convention speech, to the debate—she answered the bell every time.
She is not coasting. She is not simply existing as a non-octogenarian alternative to Trump. She is waging a smart, vigorous campaign and executing at a high level.
Even this morning I’m still seeing interviews with undecided voters who complain they don’t know where Harris stands on issues. This is something that’s been driving me bats for decades now. Ultimately it doesn’t matter how much information about candidates’ stands on issues is readily available (see Harris’s issues page on her campaign website, for example). There will be some who will persistently refuse to understand how a candidate they don’t want to vote for stands on issues. Just ignore these people, I say.
Jonathan Last also said this:
Some conservatives seem to think that news networks exist to serve the interests of their preferred candidates. That is a misunderstanding.
A journalistic institution exists to serve its audience by giving them the clearest possible understanding of reality.1 The first duty of a journalistic institution is not to be “fair” to the politicians it covers. It is to make certain that its audience is presented an accurate view of reality.
The footnote says, “An institution which places consideration for politicians above the interests of its audience practices something other than journalism.”
Even so, Trump was allowed to talk a lot more than Harris.
KAMALA HARRIS
Spoke for: 37.1 minutes
Amount of times she spoke: 23
DONALD TRUMP
Spoke for: 41.9 minutes
Amount of times he spoke: 39— Stephanie Ruhle (@SRuhle) September 11, 2024
So who’s unfair? Anyway, there are so many good analyses of How Trump Screwed the Pooch Last Night to even begin to link to them all. Do see Steve M and David Kurtz for starts, though.
I guess the only question I have is would an immigrant want to eat a pooch he had screwed?
Thank you for posting Stephanie Ruhle's time breakdown. I noticed that ABC violated its own ground rules, but I did not realize the frequency difference was so glaring.
Some of these "undecided voters" are actually people who already voted 2x for Trump and are pretending to consider whether they want to make it a trifecta.
The NYT in particular has a track record of interviewing Republican Party activists and presenting them as non-partisan or undecided.
I watched Gov. Newsom with a talking head, post debate. He said he's known Kamala for 30 years, and THIS – last night – is the Kamala he has always known was there. Moreover, she's only going to get better with more practice and exposure.
One of the psychics I follow, said a few weeks ago, that Kamala would lead Trump around by the nose – and that's exactly what happened. Newsom said he's so easily manipulated that he fell into every trap she set for him.
I don't have a link for it, but Paul Waldman (substack) said that the pet eating immigrant story came from JD Vance, doing his best to incite hate.
I’m reading that a third polled think Trump still won the debate.
I can get why “freedom and liberty” has such strong appeal. And patriotism even more appeal. Evangelist tribalism for the sake of fellowship networking, sure.
But when your chosen top guy so obviously believes in none of those things, on top of displaying so much baloney narcissism and batshit dementia that non-deranged outsiders start wondering what the true beliefs of those people really are, I quit getting it. I do get cults, but don’t cults usually have foundational beliefs outside of “I Love Our Dear Leader” ?
Stump sings a familiar refrain: "the debate was rigged" of course it was. He also says it was his best debate ever and that he won hands down! It was rigged and he won, maybe by a wisker? Many of the usual GQP subjects are conceding it wasn't his best performance, if only he would have stuck to the issues. Ten fucking years and these assholes are still waiting for Diaper Don to act presidential. Can they possibly be that f#cking ignorant?
Ah, yes, and his 2016 plan to replace Obamacare is now back to a concept of a plan.
"Can they possibly be that f#cking ignorant?"
Yes, they can and they are and they will remain so.
I particularly enjoyed Erick Erickson's tweet, "YOU STUPID MF’ers JUST GOT TRUMP TO REPEAT YOUR LIE ABOUT THE PETS."
Stump says Taylor Swift will pay a price in the marketplace for endorsing Harris! Would be possible to be more delusional? Oh well at least he has Kid Rock and Laura Loomer!
I noticed they gave Trump a lot of time, though I'm not sure it was a bad thing, in this case. This may have been a matter of "let's let him give him enough rope to hang himself." That said, it would be nice to have it called out, "Mr. Trump, you keep demanding more time, we can't keep giving it to you. Next question:"
As for the moderators damaging him, what did they check? No pets getting eaten, and no infanticide. If that's their whine, make them bloody well say it.
No, this wasn't a moderation loss. This was like Luther, 3rd season Umbrella Academy, "I've never had my ass handed to me like that before. Seriously, like, 'Hi! Here you go! It's your ass!'"
It was about eight years ago when Maha wrote that Trump might be associated with Russian misinformation about the election. As I recall at the time my comment was both skeptical yet horrified it might be true. This began quite a journey.
I hope the Gulag and Swami know we got this far and know how much their work and time was validated last night. They both provided much inspiration and guidance. The future is now more what they worked hard for it to be. That's what real heroes do.
The bananas dance today in the joy of the improved state of tomorrow.
Trump got spanked. The question is how much and where it will affect voters. The big win may be that the Harris performance (and it WAS a performance – Trump never saw the script but he delivered his lines perfectly) the performance impressed Taylor Swift who knows a thing or two about playing an audience.
I read that the website when included in her post, encouraging people to register, got 306,000 hits. That may move the needle. The Harris campaign will undoubtedly ask Swift how much more she's willing to do – a concert in PA in October perhaps? But Taylor Swift signed it, "Childless Cat Lady." Swift also hinted at her displeasure with the AI-generated fake "endorsement" Trump posted.
Trump says (and I paraphrase) he probably won't do a second debate unless it's on his network and moderated by his psycho friends, Biut "probably" may mean that Trump will wait to see if the polls show that the debate hurt I'm in the swing states. If not, he won't meet Harris onstage again. If internal polling shows Harris will win, he will take a chance.
The ratings show 65 million tuned in by TV. I connected by computer and was not counted. At first, I was on C-Span but it choked, I think. (Gebate froze and I got the rotating circle which means you aren't getting video fast enough. Not enough bandwidth. I switched and that worked, soit wasn't my computer. Which leads me to think a LOT more people watched than were counted.
I'm watching the state polls closely. A poll of less than 1000 people is unreliable IMP, but so is a poll of 2000 if it's not scientifically controlled so the samples reflect a mix of both parties and representative of the racial mix and by age. I don't know how you get a fair mix but a mix that does not reflect that state by race, age, gender, and political affiliation will be slanted. In a race this close, I don't think anyone knows. But I'm looking for trends in the results over time. If the same pollster using the same methods shows a favorable change, and other polls show the same change, it's real.
I watched Seth Myers' A Closer Look prime time special – hilarious and brilliant comedic spin on the debate and its immediate aftermath. Myers and his team have been in this fight relentlessly and consistently from the beginning, punching hard on a daily basis. He along with Colbert and Kimmel have done the essential important work of helping people like me maintain some sanity over the past eight years, delivering truth with intelligent humor.
Well according to almost every review I've read Stump came off as old, tired, incoherent and disconnected from the facts, the same things they said about old Joe. Funny that nobody is calling for him to "suspend" his campaign yet? My wife just informed me that she spent a week in Springfield Ohio a few years back at a horse show. Her and the woman that runs the Stable where she boards her horse found a stray cat, they named it crate kitty, brought it back to the Stable to be a "barn cat"it is the most beautiful cat I've ever laid eyes on and very friendly. I just can't figure out why it wasn't eaten by the twenty or so Haitians that worked the show?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wo2L–mZ4h8
I’m a childless cat dad. I’ve cared for many cats and dogs yet never got to choose one. Every single one came to me as the equivalent of ‘front porch animal in a basket with a note attached saying “Please take care of me!”.
Maybe that’s part of having no kids. You get all the animals your extended family doesn’t want.
I’ve wondered about JD Vance’s take on adoption. I know lots of young adults who refuse to have kids because the future seems so uncertain. You’d think Vance would take up encouraging them to at least consider raising the forced-birth children his people so desperately want. But then I remember Frank Schaeffer warning that those people care nothing about Christian values. I sure hope I don’t find a baby in a basket on my front porch someday.
Taylor Swift’s endorsement of Harris drives nearly 338,000 users to government voting website. A giant is rousing itself to action…
I'm a Boomer – for years, I've hoped for the social revolution that music of the 6os and 70s inspired. CSN&Y for example. And Taylor Swift isn't an activist. But she has a social conscience – her philanthropy is known. Her followers are devoted, like Deadheads without the drugs.
I can't think of how Democrats – no, better to say "fans of democracy", can thank her.
Doug, a Boomer here too, I think we're all Swifties now, and I'm proud to count myself as one!
“An institution which places consideration for politicians above the interests of its audience practices something other than journalism.”
For instance the New York Crimes, formerly Times.
I am so proud that I canceled my subscrption earlier this summer…
Specifically, it was a "gotcha" moment with a Democratic governor of Virginia who said that, if a third trimester pregnancy is to be aborted, and the infant is born alive, the parents and doctor will discuss what to do. The context was clear; the discussion was abortion in cases of severe abnormalities incompatible with life.
But the anti-abortion folks have to insist this is post-birth execution.
There's another part of it. You know how Vance has some weird-ass ideas about women? Well, they're part of the misogynistic evangelical folks he hangs with. God *made* women to be moms, and subservient to dads, see? If they're not fulfilling their divine purpose, of *course* they're unhappy, "…and the scary thing is, they don't even know it!" Which explains the childless cat lady comments.
Well, that same kind of fools say things like "well, of course they'll let you kill a child under three months, that's just the fourth trimester!"
You know, because, that makes about as much sense as saying a woman, who declares herself happy, is secretly seething that she didn't have children. I kinda wish I was lying about this, but I'/m really not. They're really quite glib at coming up with soi disant liberal reasoning, like "killing a baby under 3 months is just a fourth trimester abortion; since they don't care about babies *in* the womb, why care about those *out*?" or "childless women loathe themselves as much as *I* would if I voluntarily gave up the children I chose to bear!"
This is Christian reasoning, kind-of. The "women were created with a role" comes from the bible; the "pro-choicers don't care about babies in the womb" is just a pro-life blood libel regarding the health exception of RvW.