US Politics Election Extra: Harris - Trump Further Debate Analysis & Fact-Checking
Table of Contents 📖
"If Kamala Harris, with a little bit of debate prep, can manipulate Trump into falling into a bunch of really simple traps throughout the debate, what the frick does that say about international, you know diplomatic situations where dictators who are well versed in this, someone as a former KGB agent are with Trump sometimes alone..."
Hello Team
🎦 00:00-00:51⏩
Jonathan welcomes viewers to another video, warning them upfront that it will be a long one. He plans to discuss:
- The post-debate landscape, effects on the electorate, and analyst opinions.
- Previously unshared pertinent information.
- News, polls, and other related topics.
General Post-Debate Analysis
🎦 00:51-03:46⏩
Jonathan agrees with the general consensus that Trump performed poorly in the VP debate and that Harris won. He believes that Harris laid "obvious traps" that Trump readily fell for, attributing this to her being well-prepared while Trump was not. Trump also failed to hold Harris accountable for her vague and evasive answers, a point missed by pro-Trump commentators who solely blame the moderators. Jonathan underscores Trump's lack of preparation, arriving just two hours before the debate and opting for photo-ops over policy discussions. He also notes the debate sparked discussions about a potential second debate, believing both candidates have reasons to participate.
Return to top⤴️
SE Cupp on Trump's Manipulability
🎦 03:46-08:33⏩
Jonathan highlights SE Cupp's observation that Trump's susceptibility to manipulation was evident in the debate. Jonathan agrees, citing past instances where flattery and manipulation worked on Trump, particularly by leaders like Putin, Kim Jong-un, Bolsonaro, and Xi Jinping. He references the 2018 Helsinki press conference where Putin swayed Trump against his own intelligence services, underscoring Trump's vulnerability in diplomatic situations with experienced manipulators like Putin. Jonathan reiterates Cupp's point about Harris setting simple traps for Trump, emphasizing Trump's gullibility and lack of preparedness. Cupp concludes that swing voters likely saw this weakness, leaving them with a negative impression of Trump.
Return to top⤴️
Harris's Effective Response on Abortion
🎦 08:33-12:12⏩
Jonathan praises Harris's well-prepared and emotional answer on abortion, contrasting it with Trump's unprepared and nonsensical response. He cites a segment of her answer: >_"One does not have to abandon their faith or deeply held beliefs to agree the government should not be telling a woman what to do with her body. I have talked with women around our country pregnant women who want to carry a pregnancy to term suffering from a miscarriage, that's not what she wanted. Pregnant women who want to carry a pregnancy to term suffering from a miscarriage being denied care in an emergency room because the healthcare providers are afraid they might go to jail and she's bleeding out in a car in the parking lot she didn't want that. Her husband didn't want that. A 12 or 13-year-old survivor of incest being forced to carry a pregnancy to term they don't want that and i pledge to you when congress passes a bill speaking to the audience in place the protections of roe v wade as president of the united states i will proudly sign it into law"_ He commends Harris for connecting with voters on an emotional level while subtly highlighting the consequences of the Supreme Court decision and tying them directly to Trump. Jonathan believes this answer effectively targeted pro-life swing voters who disapprove of Trump.
Return to top⤴️
Benny Johnson's TikTok Backlash
🎦 12:12-14:36⏩
Jonathan shifts focus to Benny Johnson, the White House personnel director, who mocked Harris's abortion answer on TikTok, challenging women to share similar stories. His attempt backfired as nearly 10,000 women responded with their own experiences. Jonathan criticizes Johnson's insensitivity, emphasizing the importance of acknowledging women's lived experiences, especially on an issue as sensitive as female bodily autonomy. He views Johnson's actions as detrimental to the campaign, alienating a significant demographic.
Return to top⤴️
Jared Moskowitz on Trump's Predictability
🎦 14:36-16:14⏩
Jonathan shares a clip from Democratic representative Jared Moskowitz, emphasizing the predictability of Trump's behaviour in the debate. Moskowitz points out that the Democrats' strategy of getting under Trump's skin and "letting Donald be Donald" was no secret. He contrasts this with Trump's failed attempt to remain calm and collected, falling for Harris's provocations within minutes.
Return to top⤴️
Michelle Dimitrov on Right-Wing Conspiracy Theories
🎦 16:14-18:04⏩
Jonathan addresses right-wing conspiracy theories about the debate being rigged against Trump, citing a user comment from Michelle Dimitrov who observed these claims within right-wing information spaces. The accusations include claims that the moderators were biased, that Harris knew the questions in advance, and that there was a whistleblower within ABC. Jonathan vehemently refutes these theories, attributing Harris's strong performance to thorough preparation, emphasizing the predictability of the debate topics. He cautions viewers against falling for disinformation and emphasizes that blaming the "referee" (moderators) is a sign of a weak argument.
Return to top⤴️
Fact-Checking Trump's Debate Claims
🎦 18:04-19:12⏩
Jonathan debunks claims about Harris having an earpiece and being fact-checked less than Trump. He cites fact-check analysis showing Trump lied 33 times, while Harris only misspoke once about unemployment rates under the Trump administration. Jonathan highlights the discrepancy in accuracy, with Trump's statements on Ukraine being "empirically incorrect". He stresses the reason for Trump being fact-checked more was simply because he lied more.
Return to top⤴️
Contradictory Right-Wing Narratives
🎦 19:12-20:00⏩
Jonathan, again referencing Michelle Dimitrov's comment, exposes the contradictions within right-wing narratives about the debate. Despite acknowledging Trump's loss, they simultaneously accuse Harris of sleeping her way to the top, being unqualified, and benefiting from DEI initiatives. This, according to Michelle, exemplifies the emotional rollercoaster of conservative viewpoints. Jonathan emphasizes the simpler explanation: Harris was better prepared and outperformed Trump, who was arrogant and unprepared.
Return to top⤴️
Right-Wing Outrage and Calls for Censorship
🎦 20:00-21:12⏩
Jonathan expresses concern over calls to revoke ABC's broadcast licence and criminally charge the moderators, highlighting Sean Davis, CEO of The Federalist, as a proponent of this extreme response. He dismisses Trump's accusation of campaign finance fraud against ABC, attributing the network's post-debate choice of Jimmy Kimmel with George Conway as a guest to the higher appeal of left-leaning comedy, suggesting "punching up" humorously is more effective than "punching down". He acknowledges complaints about the moderators but criticizes the overblown reactions.
Return to top⤴️
Trump's Refusal to Debate and Inconsistent "Rematch" Argument
🎦 21:12-23:08⏩
Jonathan analyzes Trump's refusal to debate Harris again, highlighting his contradictory justification using boxing analogies. Trump argues that a fighter who is knocked out demands a rematch, implying Harris was soundly defeated and therefore a rematch is unnecessary. Jonathan points out the inconsistency, noting that after defeating Biden in the previous debate, Trump still wanted a rematch. He criticizes Trump's double standard and the absurdity of calling for a rematch only when losing. Jonathan also questions the validity of Trump's post-debate boasts about winning polls, pointing out these were unscientific Twitter polls with skewed samples rather than official polls with rigorous methodologies.
Return to top⤴️
Jonathan's Personal Anecdote about PDA and Trump
🎦 23:08-26:26⏩
Jonathan takes a detour, drawing parallels between Trump's behaviour and his son's Pathological Demand Avoidance (PDA). He explains that PDA shares similarities with Narcissistic Personality Disorder, highlighting his son's inability to handle losing, accept responsibility, or be in trouble. He describes his son's tendency to construct narratives to avoid blame, believing these narratives as truth even when contradicted by reality. Jonathan sees a similar pattern in Trump's refusal to concede the election loss and his reliance on fabricated narratives. He questions whether Trump genuinely believes his own lies or if he has become convinced through constant reinforcement and confirmation bias. Jonathan recommends the "News Agents" podcast for a deeper exploration of this topic.
Return to top⤴️
Frank Luntz's Assessment of the Debate
🎦 26:26-27:23⏩
Jonathan returns to the debate analysis, citing Republican pollster Frank Luntz who criticizes Trump's performance. Luntz describes it as "very close" to the worst debate performance he's witnessed, pointing out the bizarre topics Trump brought up (eating dogs and cats, praising Viktor Orban) and his failure to address key issues like inflation. He emphasizes Trump's negative, cynical, and contemptuous approach, predicting it will cost him votes. While Luntz believes Trump will lose because of the debate, Jonathan disagrees, predicting voters will revert to their usual positions. He acknowledges a small impact on polls, with Harris seeing a typical debate bump of 1.1%.
Return to top⤴️
Contrasting Reactions to Debate: The "Cope" Factor
🎦 27:23-42:09⏩
Jonathan analyses contrasting post-debate reactions, highlighting the defensive stance of Republicans who downplay the debate's significance. He plays a clip where commentators acknowledge Trump's poor performance but then argue he is the most experienced debater in presidential history and therefore his loss is irrelevant. They attempt to dismiss the debate's impact, echoing the "debates don't matter" sentiment from the previous Biden debate, which Jonathan finds ironic given the significant consequences of that debate. He introduces Sarah Longwell, a former Republican who conducts focus groups with swing voters. Longwell highlights the positive response to Harris among swing voters who had previously leaned towards RFK. They found Harris "presidential" and were put off by Trump's erratic behaviour. Jonathan emphasizes that while these focus groups have small sample sizes, they are carefully curated to represent specific demographics and provide valuable insights. He notes the focus group participants, typically center-right voters who dislike Trump's extremes, found Harris's performance convincing.
Return to top⤴️
Wisconsin Poll: Harris Gains Ground
🎦 42:09-47:47⏩
Jonathan presents a recent poll from Wisconsin, a key battleground state, showing Harris with a +5 lead, significantly outside the margin of error. He breaks down the "crosstabs," highlighting the shifts in voter preferences across different groups. The poll reveals:
- Solidified Democratic Vote: 99% of Democrat-leaning voters support Harris, demonstrating her success in rallying her base.
- Republican Leakage: While 92% of Republican-leaning voters support Trump, there's an 8% leakage to Harris or other options compared to only a 1% leakage from Democrats.
- Independent Swing: 50-53% of independent voters support Harris, compared to 25-38% for Trump, showing her effectiveness in capturing this crucial demographic.
Jonathan emphasizes the significance of these findings, indicating Harris's successful strategy of solidifying her base, winning over independents, and attracting some disaffected Republicans. He contrasts this with Trump's struggles in retaining his base and attracting swing voters.
Return to top⤴️
Post-Debate Fundraising Success for Harris
🎦 47:47-48:33⏩
Jonathan underscores Harris's post-debate fundraising success, citing the New York Times report of $47 million raised within 24 hours. He contrasts this with the lack of reported fundraising figures for Trump, suggesting this disparity reflects the enthusiasm generated by Harris's performance.
Return to top⤴️
Fact-Checking Trump's Crime and Immigration Claims
🎦 48:33-54:16⏩
Jonathan tackles Trump's claims about rising crime rates and the alleged criminality of immigrants. He cites Steve Ratner's fact check, showing immigrants, particularly undocumented ones, are less likely to commit crimes than US-born citizens. Jonathan presents data illustrating this point, highlighting the lower crime rates among legal and undocumented immigrants across various categories. He criticizes Trump's reliance on anecdotal evidence and fear-mongering tactics. Jonathan then presents data from the Cato Institute demonstrating lower arrest and homicide rates among illegal immigrants compared to native-born Americans, both in Texas and nationally. He reinforces the point with additional research showing increased undocumented immigration correlates with decreased violent crime.
Return to top⤴️
Debunking Trump and JD Vance's Lies about Haitian Migrants
🎦 54:16-56:33⏩
Jonathan specifically addresses Trump's inflammatory and false statements about Haitian immigrants in Springfield allegedly eating pets. He challenges the veracity of these claims, pointing out that these immigrants are legal residents and can vote. Jonathan criticizes Trump's attempt to justify his claims by saying constituents contacted his office with these stories, demanding proof from Senator JD Vance, who repeated the lies. He accuses both Trump and Vance of lying, questioning their morality and challenging Elon Musk's role in amplifying these lies on Twitter. Jonathan highlights the potential political consequences of this rhetoric, given the significant Haitian voting population in Florida.
Return to top⤴️
Fact-Checking Additional Debate Claims: Tariffs and Oil Production
🎦 56:33-58:26⏩
Jonathan briefly addresses other fact-check points from the debate:
- Tariffs: He refutes Senator JD Vance's claim that economists disagree about tariffs leading to higher prices. A University of Chicago survey showed overwhelming agreement among economists that tariffs lead to price increases.
- Oil Production: Jonathan clarifies that while Trump claimed the US became a net oil exporter under Biden, the US is currently pumping more oil than ever before in its history, questioning the logic behind the "drill baby drill" rhetoric.
Post-Debate Impact and Voter Registration
🎦 58:26-59:44⏩
Jonathan briefly touches upon voter registration trends, noting a potential "Taylor Swift effect" following her endorsement of Harris. While early data suggested higher Republican registration, Jonathan questions the quality of this data, believing it excludes states with high Democratic registration.
Return to top⤴️
Wrap Up
🎦 59:44-01:00⏩
:13
Jonathan concludes the video, inviting feedback and acknowledging the extensive focus on the debate. He expresses hope that he won't need to revisit the debate in future videos and promises another video covering other campaign areas.
Return to top⤴️
