September 11, 2024 • 35 mins
Well, Dan called it. ABC's debate moderators, David Muir and Linsy Davis, were even worse than anticipated and did everything in their power to play defense for Kamala Harris and assist in the attack against Donald Trump. Dan breaks down why Harris didn't accomplish what she needed to in making her case to undecided voters, as Trump gains ground on the core issues that matter like the economy and the border in CNN's post-debate analysis.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
This is Dan Caplis and welcome to today's online podcast
edition of The Dan Caplis Show. Please be sure to
give us a five star rating if you'd be so kind,
and to subscribe, download and listen to the show every
single day on your favorite podcast platform. And this anniversary
of nine to eleven, right, I mean, that is truly
the American way. Everybody ran toward the fire and to
(00:22):
all of those heroes on Flight ninety three and the
Twin Towers, etc. That is the American way. So we
remember them today as we try to save America for
the future. And that brings us, of course to the
debate last night. So I have to start with an apology,
right because if you listen to this show, it took
all the suspense out of last night because exactly what
(00:45):
I predicted would happened would happen. And it was horrific, right,
It was obscene. It was election interference. It was a
form of rigging an election. It was a disgrace to journalism.
You know what these Harris staffers called moderators did last night.
(01:07):
It was such a disservice to the American people because
the American people deserved the truth, the American people tuned
in for the truth. The American people wanted the answers
from both candidates, and as I predicted, the way that
they protected Harris to the extreme it was just downright dishonest.
But it deprived the American people of what they needed.
(01:28):
And that in the end, for reasons I'm about to
dive into, is going to end up backfiring on Harris.
It's going to backfire on the left long term. It's
going to actually help Trump. You know, for the same
reason that all of these bogus criminal charges and all
of this corruption of the criminal justice system to try
(01:50):
to defeat Trump has backfired on the left and helped Trump.
That's why the sentencing was put off right, that was
supposed to be coming up in a week, because it
was going to help Trump. So for the same reason
that fundamental unfairness last night is going to backfire in
Trump's favor. But there's there's another reason. It's it's going
to really hurt Harris and really help Trump. And I
(02:10):
want to get into that right now. Eighty five for
zero five A two five five text d an five
seven seven three nine. I can't wait hear from me
in the phones and text is always right, but man,
I'm gonna throwback. I'd love the phone calls too, And
I want your take obviously on who won and lost
and why, but also should Trump debate Harris again? The
(02:32):
Taylor Swift effect? What do you think it's going to be.
I'm looking at a headline right now on CNN or
a second ago talking about the enormity of the Taylor
Swift endorsement. But let me start with this, Okay, I
want to give you my take on who won last night?
First of all, for all of these people, and I
understand it's the majority of analysts, etc. Out there saying
(02:55):
that Harris won the debate last night, I think they're
provably wrong.
Speaker 2 (03:00):
Oh.
Speaker 1 (03:01):
I don't think anybody can credibly say that Harris won
the debate because that goes back to the definition of winning.
What is a win for Kamala Harris last night? There's
only one meaningful definition of winning, changing the arc of
the race so that she's elected president. This was her
last best opportunity to do that, and I think she
(03:24):
clearly failed at that. So how can you say she
won the debate when all indications are that she did
not change the arc of the race. So I think
she clearly lost the debate according to the definition that
matters most, and the proof of that you don't have
to take my word for it. The proof of that
(03:45):
is that she immediately asked for a second debate. If
she had won the debate, meaning change the ark of
the race, so she was now on track to win,
she would not have asked for a second debate. That's irrefutable.
So I think it is inaccurate to say that Kamala
Harris won the debate. Now did Trump win the debate? Again?
(04:09):
We come back to the definition. Listen, come on, anybody
in the right mind watching that debate last night, if
you want Donald Trump to win, was going to be
very frustrated that he missed so many obvious openings. Yeah, yeah,
I'm frustrated. Everybody's frustrated he missed those openings. I don't
think he's getting enough credit for the many really good
(04:29):
things he did last night. Again, keeping in mind that
that is such a tough scenario when it literally is
three against one and the other two the Harris staffers
who were there, Meir and Lindsey Davis. The Harris staffers
are smarter and more effective than Harris's so in that
three on one, limited time, etc. I think he did
(04:53):
some remarkably good things he's not getting enough credit for.
But clearly he missed a lot of openings. Is it
possible to say that he won the debate? Well, this
comes back to what's the definition of winning. It is
the definition of winning that you have polls right afterwards
that say, oh, yeah, sixty percent say Trump on forty
(05:14):
percent say Harris. That's not the definition of winning the debate.
The definition of winning the debate is to do what
you have to do to win the presidency. If that's
the definition of winning the debate, Yeah, Trump won the debate,
and that's because, hey, there was no major gaff that
turned the race in her favor. That that's winning the debate,
(05:38):
especially under those circumstances. But think about the history of
these presidential debates. You know, it's all about the big gaffes.
It's not Wow, Johnny was so impressive in that debate,
He's going to win the presidency, except for maybe John Kennedy, right,
because that contrasted Nixon. But no, it's about the big
gaffs that cost people. And so Trump avoided that last night,
(06:03):
which I think is very significant because while he missed
so many opportunities, right, and it would have been great,
and if he hit half those opportunities, she's clearly done now.
She's not bidenized the way he was on June twenty seven,
but she's clearly done now. And he missed a lot
of those opportunities. But that's not a fraction as harmful
(06:26):
as some big gaff and there was no big gaff.
And on temperament, yeah, he flared up a couple of times,
but overall, under the circumstances, I think he did very
well on temperament. So yeah, he could have ended the
race last night conclusively, missed that opportunity. Frustrating. But if
the definition of winning or losing the debate is whether
(06:49):
you are now on track to win the presidency, well
she lost. She lost. And so as we sit here
right now, As we sit here right now and we
look at that election interference we saw last night from ABC,
please keep in mind that that is an enormous favor
(07:11):
I'd say long term, but long term now is over
two or three weeks. That's an enormous favor to the
Trump campaign because by ABC rigging this thing last night,
for Harris. What they did was create the best night
possible for her, right the best night possible. She looked
as good as she could possibly look because she was
(07:32):
so thoroughly and dishonestly protected by ABC. So if the move,
if the needle does not move decisively in her favor
right now, if she doesn't open up a big lead
that she sustains over the next three weeks or so,
that's disastrous for the Democrats because what that means is
(07:54):
when she has her best night possible because ABC created
it for the people just aren't buying it. If she
doesn't have a big move in the polls now after
last night's charade, it just means the people don't buy
what she's selling. And that is the reality I believe
as we sit in America today and listen, you know
(08:15):
it and I know it, we are going to see
some polls come out over the next few days that
show this big shift and Harris opening up this lead, etc.
And two things on that. First, the media lies for
her all the time exhibit a last night. And one
of the ways the media sometimes lies for her and
other Democrats is through polling. So take those with the
grain of salt. But second, see what sustains over time,
(08:40):
because when you really get into the polling that's been
done since last night, almost every indication right now is
that she swung and missed. She came up short. Yeah,
she looked a lot better than people thought she would
because the bar was so low for good reason, just
looking at her past performance, and ABC protected her the
(09:02):
way they did. But the fact she looked better than
she was expected to doesn't mean she gave those undecided
voters what they wanted. And all indications from the polling
overnight is that she didn't. Because I know you're seeing
some topline polls that say sixty percent say Harris won
the debate. Who cares? That's not what matters. Did it
(09:26):
change their vote? Who are they supporting for president? And
in almost every poll I've seen in these many of
them are poles conducted by the left, the answer is no.
Most people think she quote won the debate for the
reasons I just mentioned. I disagree with that, but in
the end, that's not changing the arc of the race.
It hasn't changed where the race stood before the debate.
(09:48):
But then it gets even better for Trump. And when
we come back and I do it right now. I'm
not just trying to do a cheap tease. But when
we come back about four to twenty one, I will
give you a profound truth that nobody else is told
talking about, nobody in the country is talking about. In
the second you hear it, you're going to say, yeah,
that's true, and it's a profound truth about this race,
(10:09):
about what happened last night. And I'll give you Exhibit A.
I'll play it for you proof that Kamala Harris lost
this debate in the first two minutes. You're on the
Dankplas Show.
Speaker 3 (10:24):
And now back to the Dan Kaplis Show podcast.
Speaker 4 (10:27):
Good Morning America.
Speaker 5 (10:28):
I'm Charles Gibson, I'm Diane Sorry, and it's Tuesday, September eleventh,
two thousand and one.
Speaker 2 (10:33):
It is lunchtime in London, five am in Los Angeles and.
Speaker 3 (10:37):
Eight am here in New York.
Speaker 5 (10:39):
Live from the CNN Financial News headquarters.
Speaker 1 (10:42):
It is beautiful outside, perfect September day with lots of sunshine.
Speaker 6 (10:45):
Oh would you look at Washington.
Speaker 1 (10:47):
Huh, I'm going outside today.
Speaker 3 (10:50):
Other than that, it's kind of quiet around the country.
Speaker 7 (10:52):
We like quiet because it's quiet. It's too quiet too.
Speaker 1 (10:55):
Yeah, this justin you were looking at.
Speaker 6 (10:59):
Obviously a very disturbing live shot there that is the
World Trade Center.
Speaker 7 (11:03):
Plus better the majoris in form.
Speaker 2 (11:08):
Apparently a plane has crashed into the World Trade Center,
New York.
Speaker 1 (11:19):
We'll play more of that. But you know, I think
it's really good that debate happened on September ten because
one of the areas where I thought Trump just shined
last night. What was talking about foreign policy, talking about
war versus peace, and the contrast there is so clear,
and and I don't think there are a handful of
(11:40):
undecided voters who really believe that that Kamala Harris has
the gravitas to stand up to our enemies or even
the inclination to including radical Islam eight five five for
zero five eight two five five of the number. Hey,
if you missed the first segment, the down and dirty
on it is. I think the people saying Harris won
the debate are wrong because win means that it increased
(12:05):
her chance to win the presidency, it changed the arc
of the race, and all indications are that it did not.
So how can you say she won the debate when
it's her last best chance? And I want your take
on whether you think Trump should debate her again eight
five to five four zero five eight two five five
text d an five seven seventh three nine. But here's
the profound truth, okay, And this is, in my opinion,
(12:29):
the proper lens to analyze last night's debate and whether
Harris won again defining winning as changing the arc because
she's arcing tour to defeat at this point. Did she
change that arc last night? And I think the answers
clearly know. But here's why. Because you haven't heard this anywhere.
As soon as you hear it, I think you're going
(12:50):
to agree it's true. What you hear right now is oh,
Harris won because she was on the offensive. She took
the debate to him, she walked across the stage, he
missed opportunities, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. But again,
if winning, if winning is winning with the people who
will decide this race, which means changing their mind, moving them,
(13:14):
getting them to decide in your direction. No, and here's why.
Here's why she lost. Here's why she lost. And I'm
going to play you the sound. She lost this debate
and her best chance to turn this race around in
the first two minutes of the debate when they were
talking about the economy, which is what matters most to
(13:34):
people on the border. As Trump pointed out, very well,
you know, intersects with that perfectly. But here's the point.
There's so much talk about this candidate lies, that candidate lies. Hey,
the reality is these handful of swing voters in six
states who are going to decide the race. They're swing
voters for a reason. They're not married to either camp.
(13:58):
They're out there going race to raise, voting their self interest,
in voting their instincts. So you can fairly compare them
to jurors.
Speaker 7 (14:08):
Right.
Speaker 1 (14:09):
They're jurors in this case that's being tried in the
six swing states, and they're jurors who are going to
decide the case of Trump v. Harris. And there is
a direct, perfect analogy now between not you and me,
or not your friends who are Democrats, we don't matter,
(14:31):
but there's a direct analogy between these undecided swing state
voters and jurors. And this I can tell you from
forty years of trying cases and hopefully forty more to come.
Jurors like these swing state voters above all, they want
direct answers to important questions. I'll tell you every case
(14:55):
I've ever tried, the second to witness I'm cross examining
and will not answer a key, legitimate, important question directly.
I win. It's better for me if they don't answer
the question, if they're obviously evasive, then if they give
me the answer I want. Because when you are a
(15:18):
juror in a trial, and everybody listening to who's been
one knows this is true. Just like if you are
an undecided swing state voter, somebody wants something from you.
Somebody wants something from that voter, they darn well better
answer the key questions directly. And what hurts Kamala Harris
(15:40):
far more than any lie is when she refuses to
answer the questions when she obviously evades the core question.
And the core question which the debate opened with last
night was are you better off? You know, Kamala Harris,
do you think people are better off today than they
(16:01):
were four years ago? And Kamala Harris blatantly, unequivocally dodged
the question. That's where she lost the debate. That's the
ultimate insult to these swing state voters, and it was
part of a pattern over the course of the evening.
And now you hear it turning up and the focus
groups that are being done afterwork by focus groups of
(16:24):
independent voters being done by lefting networks. When she decided
to avoid that fair question and dodge it, that's where
she lost you know who? She also lost there. I mean,
he'll still vote for Jake Tapper. This is just a
short time ago on CNN.
Speaker 5 (16:38):
Going right to my point, Vice President Harris began the
debate by punting the first question on the economy.
Speaker 7 (16:47):
Do you believe Americans are better off than they were
four years ago?
Speaker 2 (16:51):
So I was raised as a middle class kid, and
I am actually the only person.
Speaker 1 (16:56):
She lost it right there. Fair question deserves an answer.
She knew it was coming, and she profoundly disrespected the
swing state voters by refusing to answer it and then
launching off into these talking points and.
Speaker 2 (17:13):
On the stage, who has a plan that is about
lifting up the middle class and working people of America?
Speaker 5 (17:18):
They went on from there. Despite the economy being the
number one issue facing the country, the sitting Vice president
generally reverted to talking points about a few of her
policy proposals. Even harris allies today are saying that she
needs to talk more about what she will do for Americans.
Speaker 1 (17:35):
Yeah, drop the mic. That's Jake Tepper on CNN, And
there were multiple examples of that, and of course ABC
didn't follow up with her because they were protecting her,
But ironically, you know, they ended up helping Trump because
I'm telling you, nothing's going to offend a jur more
than the witness refusing to answer a fair, direct question.
(17:59):
So I think she really hurt herself profoundly. I think
what you just heard from Tapper, and that was just
a short time ago, I think confirms that. So bottom line,
a win for her had to mean changing the arc
of this race. I think clearly she lost, and that's
why she immediately wanted a second debate. Should Donald Trump
debate her again. You're on the Dan Kapla Show.
Speaker 3 (18:27):
You're listening to the Dan Kaplis Show podcast.
Speaker 1 (18:30):
Here's the key point I touched on in the last segment.
Voters assumed that candidates on both sides lie, right, So
what hurt Harris so badly last night were not her lies.
What hurt her so badly was doing something that I
think offends many swing state voters, just like many jurors
(18:52):
much more, and that is refusing to answer a direct
question dodging and important direct questions, such as Vice President Harris,
do you think that people are better off now than
they were four years ago? It goes beyond even that,
the terrible, terrible reaction to a lie when somebody will
(19:13):
not even show you the courtesy the respect of answering
an important question. I think she really hurt herself that way,
and the sound I played from Jake Tapper at the
beginning proved it. He went off on her on it,
Cindy in beautiful Fremont County, you're on the dan Kaplas show.
Speaker 4 (19:29):
Welcome, Hello, thanks for taking my call. I understand the
debate was definitely biased and that was unfortunate, But I
also felt like Trump was not prepared. I was disappointed
that he couldn't be succinct and go on the attack
on his answers and for those people that only, oh,
(19:49):
only Trump can win this election, nobody else. I just
felt like, you know, somebody younger up there may have
been a little bit more humble and willing to really
prep and to know how to go on the attack.
So I was disappointed.
Speaker 1 (20:05):
Cindy, what a brilliant call. It gets into two very
important things in my opinion. First, you're absolutely right. If
President Trump had done traditional debate prep, he would have
been so much better last night, taking advantages, taking advantage
of openings, etc. Very frustrating to me, and it has
been since sixteen that he won't do traditional debate prep.
(20:27):
But I think you know from your life. I know
from mine that whether it's you, Cindy or me, Dan
or Ryan or Kelly or Donald Trump, that many of
the same things that can make us great in the
ways that we're all great, you know, can can also
be a liability in another area. President Trump is stubborn.
(20:47):
That stubbornness can be as great as strength when it
comes to debate prep. I think it bit him in
the butt. But at that point, Cindy conclude that we'd
be better off with another candidate. Here's why I respectfully disagree. Okay,
and I've said before I would have been thrilled with
Ron DeSantis as a nominee. But here's why Trump, in
my opinion, gives us the best chance to win. Because
(21:08):
it's only Donald Trump who can get this massive turnout
from people who normally don't vote because they see him
as the opposite of a normal politician. That's how he
won in sixteen, That's how I think he's going to
win this time. In the New York Times poll that
came out over the weekend, it showed him with an
enormous advantage over folks who don't vote very often. So
(21:31):
that's why I think he still gives us the best
chance to win. Hey, appreciate the call, Cindy. What a
great question, great way to start. Let's go to Mike
in Denver. You're on the Dan Kapolo Show. Lines are full.
Speaker 7 (21:43):
Welcome Mike, mister caplis. Thank you for taking Mike halg
scraight to be with you again. So just a couple
of quick things here. First of all, you know about
Kamala Harris falsely claiming she never said that she would
she said she would never ban fracking. She's clearly on
camera seeing multiple times in the past she was banned fracking.
But ABC David Murr, they did not fact check that,
(22:07):
but they fact checked Trump. Second one, Mike.
Speaker 1 (22:09):
May have stopped you on that, real quick stop you
on that because no criticism of you. You're using the term.
Everybody does fact check. But I just want to make
the point that what is being labeled fact checking quote
unquote by ABC is actually election interference. It's ABC participating
in the debate. When they did their quote fact checks,
(22:32):
they were actually jumping into the ring and debating Trump themselves.
So go ahead, my friend.
Speaker 7 (22:39):
Well that's a really good point, Dan, And as Ryan
pointed out earlier, if they're going to do it for
Kamala or if they're going to do it for Trump,
they need to do it for Kamala. It needs to
be unbiased and fair. And they definitely did not do that.
I think that they fact checked Trump seven times. They
factored my Brotherma zero times.
Speaker 1 (22:57):
My brother. How old are you, Mike?
Speaker 7 (22:59):
I am twenty.
Speaker 1 (23:00):
Awesome, So glad of you, So glad you're listening. Here's
my point. They weren't trying to hide it. These Harris
staffers who were moderating the debate weren't trying to hide
their bias. They're proud of it. They wanted the world
to see it. They are the king and queen of
their profession today because most of their profession have just
(23:21):
become political activists. They're heroes. They weren't trying to hide it.
Speaker 7 (23:26):
Yeah. Absolutely, And I think I think that ties into
you know, Kamala havy ties with you know, upper level executives,
ABC and whatnot. I mean, that could be speculation. I
think that's part of it. Another thing, really quick, I
just wanted to mention when they were talking about Obamacare,
they tried to point out that Trump, you know, tried
to repeal the Affordable Care Act almost sixty times during
(23:48):
his presidency without a replacement. And they tried to keep
bringing up, well, what's your plan, what's your plan? Well
he's not, you know, he still needs time to make
up a plan. But I guess the point they were
trying to point out is, well, they tried to he
tried to repeel it without a Medicare country.
Speaker 1 (24:06):
Can we do this, Mike, because you're hitting on such
an important point even before we get to the policy weeds.
This is another example of how if President Trump had
done traditional debate prep, he would have been better, right, absolutely,
because then you would have been ready for a relatively
obscure question. But Mike, that question put a smile on
my face when I heard it last night, because you
(24:28):
know that Harris's team in this case, mirror, they were
not going to a question like that unless they thought
Trump was on track to win the race, right, because
who sits around the water cooler these days talking about Obamacare.
I mean, they know at this point, on the core
issues in this race that matter to people, Trump is
on track to win this election.
Speaker 7 (24:50):
Yeah, exactly, and they know that, you know, all Kamala
wants to do is improve the Obamacare plan we already
have in place. They know that she doesn't want to
make something better. That's why they asked the question because
they know obviously Trump doesn't have a plan in place,
because Obamacare is the law of the land right now.
So it clearly is a bias question in a gotcha
(25:12):
question in a way.
Speaker 1 (25:13):
I think, Oh, I think it was a gotcha Mike,
appreciate the call. And again this is where listen, President
Trump should have been better prepared for the debate. He
should have done excuse me not getting emotional, it's peanut butter,
should have done traditional debate prep and with his great mind,
and he showed a great mind and great presence and
(25:34):
great temperament in that incredibly challenging scenario multiple times last night.
If he had done traditional debate prep, then a gotcha
surprise question like that probably would have anticipated and done
away with as it was it made him look bad
that he could just talk about the concept of a plan,
but that wasn't going to have any long term impact.
(25:54):
You know, he was great on the areas that are
going to have long term impact. He did a great,
great job of circling back to the border over and
over and over again.
Speaker 6 (26:05):
We have millions of people pouring into our country from
prisons and jails, from mental institutions and insane asylums, and
they're coming in and they're taking jobs that are occupied
right now by African Americans and Hispanics, and also unions.
Unions are going to be affected.
Speaker 1 (26:23):
When he went on and on, but he did a
great job of repeatedly coming back to that. Yeah, very frustrating.
He missed so many openings, but in the end, keep
in mind that's not going to hurt him a fraction
of what a big gaff would have, and there were
no big gaffes. Scott and Littleton, you're on the Dan
Kapla Show.
Speaker 8 (26:41):
Welcome, Hi, Dan. I kind of disagree with you. First
of all, I support TRUMPO vote for him, My wife
supports him, and I'll vote for him. But I think
he was disgusting last night and I'll just give you
three question sures. First of all, he has a real grungey,
(27:01):
ugly face all night. He has that monotone voice. He's
a lousy speaker. Really for someone that uh that rich.
He he really turns off women. My wife got turned
off several times.
Speaker 1 (27:17):
Why she vote them things?
Speaker 8 (27:18):
They said, Well, because.
Speaker 1 (27:23):
You know Kamala is sure enough, I get it, and
I interrupted you. So we've got grungey face, lousy speaker,
what else?
Speaker 8 (27:33):
And and he's not very clever when uh Kamala went
and started in on you know, some of the Republicans
that have turned against him, for instance, like McCain. He
needs to have some good comeback. Can't be that dumb.
And he kind of come back and said, you know,
(27:54):
first of all, I'll take her not supporting me as
a badge of honor. I mean, this lady got voted
out of Wyoming and her seat in Wyoming actually had
for many years.
Speaker 1 (28:05):
And if you could do me a favorite, as Scott,
I'm not pausing you because you disagree with me. I'm
hoping you come back after the break. We've got to
hit this hard break. But you're absolutely right. There were
so many obvious openings for the president last night that
he missed on balance, though I still believe she did
not win for the reasons I opened the show with.
He avoided any major gaps. He did very well in
(28:26):
certain categories. But to Scott's good point, when it comes
to saying, oh, Dick Cheney's endorsing me, Trump should have
been very, very prepared to just turn to her and say,
you know, from Trump's perspective, yeah, because you're both warmongers. Yeah,
but yeah, just miss so many of those opportunities. All
I'm suggesting is when we step back and we look
(28:48):
at this in the scope of did she do what
she needed to do to change the arc of this race,
which is our conturor Trump victory? Clearly she didn't, or
she wouldn't have asked immediately afterwards for the second debate.
You're on the Dankpla Show.
Speaker 3 (29:04):
And now back to the dan Kapla Show podcast.
Speaker 1 (29:07):
Breaking down last night's event. You can see why I've
refused to call debate for weeks leading up to it,
because you could tell it was going to be rigged,
and it was now no surprise, right, and Trump needed
to be prepared for that under the circumstances. I think
in a lot of ways. He did very well, obviously
missed a lot of opportunities. I wish he would do
(29:28):
traditional debate prep if he's going to do another one
of these debates, which I think would be a mistake
because I think he's our contured victory right now. I
think that he should do traditional debate prep eight five
to five for zero five eight two five five text
d an five seven, seven thirty nine. But I think
he he was a brilliant at different points during this
(29:50):
three on one last night. One of the things I
think he did best and then I'll get back and
we have great text as well as calls, is the
way he flipped the J six question. I think it
was one one of his strongest individual moments. Is there
anything you regret about what you did on that day?
Speaker 6 (30:06):
You just said a thing that isn't covered peacefully and patriotically,
I said during my speech, not later on, peacefully and patriotically.
And nobody on the other side was killed. Ashley Babbitt
was shot by an out of control police officer that
should have never ever shot her. It's a disgrace, but
(30:29):
we didn't do this group of people that have been
treated so badly.
Speaker 1 (30:33):
And here comes the pivot that I thought was so effective.
Speaker 6 (30:37):
I ask, what about all the people that are pouring
into our country and killing people that she allowed to
poort in? She was the boatis are? Remember that she
was the borders are. She doesn't want to be called
the boordosar because she's embarrassed by the voter efact. She
said at the beginning, Oh, I'm surprised you're not talking
about the boarder yet. That's because she knows what a
bad job they've done. What about those people? What are
(30:57):
they going to be prosecuted? One of these people from
countries all over the world, not just South America.
Speaker 1 (31:03):
And then he went on on that. I thought it
was a very very effective pivot because it's a great point.
It's absolutely a great point that goes to something fundamentally
un American and dangerous to the foundation of this nation,
which is having a two tier justice system. Different justice
system if you're a lefty and lefties are in power,
and then conservatives not that they just don't get the
(31:24):
same kind of justice. And I'm not defending anything that
happened on j six, I'm just talking about Trump making
a very fair point there. Eight five to five for
zero five A two five five text d an five
seven seven three nine. If you just joined us, thank you.
But I think Jake Tapper, what he said this afternoon
confirms my core belief that Kamala Harris did not win
(31:45):
that debate. And winning means doing what you have to
do to change the arc of the race. Anything short
of that, how could that be a win for her?
And she lost it in the first two minutes and
then repeated this pattern throughout where she would to answer
important direct questions. And I think when it comes to jurors,
which is my world, and I think swing state voters,
(32:07):
that's the same mentality. I think when you refuse to
answer a direct question, you lose them.
Speaker 5 (32:13):
Vice President Harris began the debate by punting the first
question on the economy.
Speaker 7 (32:19):
Do you believe Americans are better off than they were
four years ago?
Speaker 2 (32:23):
So I was raised as a middle class kid, and
I am actually the only person on this stage who
has a plan that is about lifting up the middle
class and working people of America.
Speaker 5 (32:35):
It went on from there. Despite the economy being the
number one issue facing the country, the sitting Vice president
generally reverted to talking points about a few of her
policy proposals. Even Harris allies today are saying that she
needs to talk more about what she will do for
Americans if elected. Senator Bernie Sanders will be here in
a second.
Speaker 1 (32:54):
Yeah, And then he went on on that. See, even
Jake Tepper in the left are making that point. And
that's why she came out right afterwards, right minutes afterwards,
and offered a second debate. Was taunting Trump to agree
to second debate. If she really thought she had done
what she needed to do to change the arc of
the race, she wouldn't do that, right, But listen, the cabal.
(33:15):
The cabal is sophisticated, and you can be sure that
they had legitimately screened focus group members working dials in
all of the swing states during that debate. And you
know how dials work, right, So rather than writing down
notes or being interviewed later, they are real time turning
dials up or down depending upon how they're reacting to
(33:37):
what's being said on the screen. And so you can
be certain that the Harris camp knew second by second
as it moved through this event whether they were accomplishing
what they needed to in the debate, and they clearly
saw that they were not. That's why they offered the
second one. That's why I think he'd be crazy to
agree to a second debate. I know I have a
lot of very kind Texters asking whether I think he
(34:00):
should agree to a second debate. If I'm right and
he's tracking toward victory right now, then there's no way
he should agree to a second event like this in
my opinion, even if it's on Fox. But I'd love
to get your take. It's all about winning, right, It's
all about saving the country by winning, So why would
you take that chance if you're tracking toward victory here?
(34:22):
And it's clearly why she wants another one.
Speaker 3 (34:26):
Dan.
Speaker 1 (34:27):
We may not agree with how the fact checking and
mattering went, but it's not Harris's fault, so I think
you should stop blaming her. But I'm not blaming Harris
for ABC deciding to rig this event, engage in election
interference and disgrace journalism. I'm not blaming Harris for that.
What I'm saying is it's going to hurt Harris because
(34:49):
they created a situation where she had the best night
possible because she was thoroughly protected. And if the numbers
don't move dramatically in her favor. Right now, it's a
clear message America ain't buying what she's selling.
This is Dan Caplis and welcome to today's online podcast
edition of The Dan Caplis Show. Please be sure to
give us a five star rating if you'd be so kind,
and to subscribe, download and listen to the show every
single day on your favorite podcast platform. And this anniversary
of nine to eleven, right, I mean, that is truly
the American way. Everybody ran toward the fire and to
(00:22):
all of those heroes on Flight ninety three and the
Twin Towers, etc. That is the American way. So we
remember them today as we try to save America for
the future. And that brings us, of course to the
debate last night. So I have to start with an apology,
right because if you listen to this show, it took
all the suspense out of last night because exactly what
(00:45):
I predicted would happened would happen. And it was horrific, right,
It was obscene. It was election interference. It was a
form of rigging an election. It was a disgrace to journalism.
You know what these Harris staffers called moderators did last night.
(01:07):
It was such a disservice to the American people because
the American people deserved the truth, the American people tuned
in for the truth. The American people wanted the answers
from both candidates, and as I predicted, the way that
they protected Harris to the extreme it was just downright dishonest.
But it deprived the American people of what they needed.
(01:28):
And that in the end, for reasons I'm about to
dive into, is going to end up backfiring on Harris.
It's going to backfire on the left long term. It's
going to actually help Trump. You know, for the same
reason that all of these bogus criminal charges and all
of this corruption of the criminal justice system to try
(01:50):
to defeat Trump has backfired on the left and helped Trump.
That's why the sentencing was put off right, that was
supposed to be coming up in a week, because it
was going to help Trump. So for the same reason
that fundamental unfairness last night is going to backfire in
Trump's favor. But there's there's another reason. It's it's going
to really hurt Harris and really help Trump. And I
(02:10):
want to get into that right now. Eighty five for
zero five A two five five text d an five
seven seven three nine. I can't wait hear from me
in the phones and text is always right, but man,
I'm gonna throwback. I'd love the phone calls too, And
I want your take obviously on who won and lost
and why, but also should Trump debate Harris again? The
(02:32):
Taylor Swift effect? What do you think it's going to be.
I'm looking at a headline right now on CNN or
a second ago talking about the enormity of the Taylor
Swift endorsement. But let me start with this, Okay, I
want to give you my take on who won last night?
First of all, for all of these people, and I
understand it's the majority of analysts, etc. Out there saying
(02:55):
that Harris won the debate last night, I think they're
provably wrong.
Speaker 2 (03:00):
Oh.
Speaker 1 (03:01):
I don't think anybody can credibly say that Harris won
the debate because that goes back to the definition of winning.
What is a win for Kamala Harris last night? There's
only one meaningful definition of winning, changing the arc of
the race so that she's elected president. This was her
last best opportunity to do that, and I think she
(03:24):
clearly failed at that. So how can you say she
won the debate when all indications are that she did
not change the arc of the race. So I think
she clearly lost the debate according to the definition that
matters most, and the proof of that you don't have
to take my word for it. The proof of that
(03:45):
is that she immediately asked for a second debate. If
she had won the debate, meaning change the ark of
the race, so she was now on track to win,
she would not have asked for a second debate. That's irrefutable.
So I think it is inaccurate to say that Kamala
Harris won the debate. Now did Trump win the debate? Again?
(04:09):
We come back to the definition. Listen, come on, anybody
in the right mind watching that debate last night, if
you want Donald Trump to win, was going to be
very frustrated that he missed so many obvious openings. Yeah, yeah,
I'm frustrated. Everybody's frustrated he missed those openings. I don't
think he's getting enough credit for the many really good
(04:29):
things he did last night. Again, keeping in mind that
that is such a tough scenario when it literally is
three against one and the other two the Harris staffers
who were there, Meir and Lindsey Davis. The Harris staffers
are smarter and more effective than Harris's so in that
three on one, limited time, etc. I think he did
(04:53):
some remarkably good things he's not getting enough credit for.
But clearly he missed a lot of openings. Is it
possible to say that he won the debate? Well, this
comes back to what's the definition of winning. It is
the definition of winning that you have polls right afterwards
that say, oh, yeah, sixty percent say Trump on forty
(05:14):
percent say Harris. That's not the definition of winning the debate.
The definition of winning the debate is to do what
you have to do to win the presidency. If that's
the definition of winning the debate, Yeah, Trump won the debate,
and that's because, hey, there was no major gaff that
turned the race in her favor. That that's winning the debate,
(05:38):
especially under those circumstances. But think about the history of
these presidential debates. You know, it's all about the big gaffes.
It's not Wow, Johnny was so impressive in that debate,
He's going to win the presidency, except for maybe John Kennedy, right,
because that contrasted Nixon. But no, it's about the big
gaffs that cost people. And so Trump avoided that last night,
(06:03):
which I think is very significant because while he missed
so many opportunities, right, and it would have been great,
and if he hit half those opportunities, she's clearly done now.
She's not bidenized the way he was on June twenty seven,
but she's clearly done now. And he missed a lot
of those opportunities. But that's not a fraction as harmful
(06:26):
as some big gaff and there was no big gaff.
And on temperament, yeah, he flared up a couple of times,
but overall, under the circumstances, I think he did very
well on temperament. So yeah, he could have ended the
race last night conclusively, missed that opportunity. Frustrating. But if
the definition of winning or losing the debate is whether
(06:49):
you are now on track to win the presidency, well
she lost. She lost. And so as we sit here
right now, As we sit here right now and we
look at that election interference we saw last night from ABC,
please keep in mind that that is an enormous favor
(07:11):
I'd say long term, but long term now is over
two or three weeks. That's an enormous favor to the
Trump campaign because by ABC rigging this thing last night,
for Harris. What they did was create the best night
possible for her, right the best night possible. She looked
as good as she could possibly look because she was
(07:32):
so thoroughly and dishonestly protected by ABC. So if the move,
if the needle does not move decisively in her favor
right now, if she doesn't open up a big lead
that she sustains over the next three weeks or so,
that's disastrous for the Democrats because what that means is
(07:54):
when she has her best night possible because ABC created
it for the people just aren't buying it. If she
doesn't have a big move in the polls now after
last night's charade, it just means the people don't buy
what she's selling. And that is the reality I believe
as we sit in America today and listen, you know
(08:15):
it and I know it, we are going to see
some polls come out over the next few days that
show this big shift and Harris opening up this lead, etc.
And two things on that. First, the media lies for
her all the time exhibit a last night. And one
of the ways the media sometimes lies for her and
other Democrats is through polling. So take those with the
grain of salt. But second, see what sustains over time,
(08:40):
because when you really get into the polling that's been
done since last night, almost every indication right now is
that she swung and missed. She came up short. Yeah,
she looked a lot better than people thought she would
because the bar was so low for good reason, just
looking at her past performance, and ABC protected her the
(09:02):
way they did. But the fact she looked better than
she was expected to doesn't mean she gave those undecided
voters what they wanted. And all indications from the polling
overnight is that she didn't. Because I know you're seeing
some topline polls that say sixty percent say Harris won
the debate. Who cares? That's not what matters. Did it
(09:26):
change their vote? Who are they supporting for president? And
in almost every poll I've seen in these many of
them are poles conducted by the left, the answer is no.
Most people think she quote won the debate for the
reasons I just mentioned. I disagree with that, but in
the end, that's not changing the arc of the race.
It hasn't changed where the race stood before the debate.
(09:48):
But then it gets even better for Trump. And when
we come back and I do it right now. I'm
not just trying to do a cheap tease. But when
we come back about four to twenty one, I will
give you a profound truth that nobody else is told
talking about, nobody in the country is talking about. In
the second you hear it, you're going to say, yeah,
that's true, and it's a profound truth about this race,
(10:09):
about what happened last night. And I'll give you Exhibit A.
I'll play it for you proof that Kamala Harris lost
this debate in the first two minutes. You're on the
Dankplas Show.
Speaker 3 (10:24):
And now back to the Dan Kaplis Show podcast.
Speaker 4 (10:27):
Good Morning America.
Speaker 5 (10:28):
I'm Charles Gibson, I'm Diane Sorry, and it's Tuesday, September eleventh,
two thousand and one.
Speaker 2 (10:33):
It is lunchtime in London, five am in Los Angeles and.
Speaker 3 (10:37):
Eight am here in New York.
Speaker 5 (10:39):
Live from the CNN Financial News headquarters.
Speaker 1 (10:42):
It is beautiful outside, perfect September day with lots of sunshine.
Speaker 6 (10:45):
Oh would you look at Washington.
Speaker 1 (10:47):
Huh, I'm going outside today.
Speaker 3 (10:50):
Other than that, it's kind of quiet around the country.
Speaker 7 (10:52):
We like quiet because it's quiet. It's too quiet too.
Speaker 1 (10:55):
Yeah, this justin you were looking at.
Speaker 6 (10:59):
Obviously a very disturbing live shot there that is the
World Trade Center.
Speaker 7 (11:03):
Plus better the majoris in form.
Speaker 2 (11:08):
Apparently a plane has crashed into the World Trade Center,
New York.
Speaker 1 (11:19):
We'll play more of that. But you know, I think
it's really good that debate happened on September ten because
one of the areas where I thought Trump just shined
last night. What was talking about foreign policy, talking about
war versus peace, and the contrast there is so clear,
and and I don't think there are a handful of
(11:40):
undecided voters who really believe that that Kamala Harris has
the gravitas to stand up to our enemies or even
the inclination to including radical Islam eight five five for
zero five eight two five five of the number. Hey,
if you missed the first segment, the down and dirty
on it is. I think the people saying Harris won
the debate are wrong because win means that it increased
(12:05):
her chance to win the presidency, it changed the arc
of the race, and all indications are that it did not.
So how can you say she won the debate when
it's her last best chance? And I want your take
on whether you think Trump should debate her again eight
five to five four zero five eight two five five
text d an five seven seventh three nine. But here's
the profound truth, okay, And this is, in my opinion,
(12:29):
the proper lens to analyze last night's debate and whether
Harris won again defining winning as changing the arc because
she's arcing tour to defeat at this point. Did she
change that arc last night? And I think the answers
clearly know. But here's why. Because you haven't heard this anywhere.
As soon as you hear it, I think you're going
(12:50):
to agree it's true. What you hear right now is oh,
Harris won because she was on the offensive. She took
the debate to him, she walked across the stage, he
missed opportunities, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. But again,
if winning, if winning is winning with the people who
will decide this race, which means changing their mind, moving them,
(13:14):
getting them to decide in your direction. No, and here's why.
Here's why she lost. Here's why she lost. And I'm
going to play you the sound. She lost this debate
and her best chance to turn this race around in
the first two minutes of the debate when they were
talking about the economy, which is what matters most to
(13:34):
people on the border. As Trump pointed out, very well,
you know, intersects with that perfectly. But here's the point.
There's so much talk about this candidate lies, that candidate lies. Hey,
the reality is these handful of swing voters in six
states who are going to decide the race. They're swing
voters for a reason. They're not married to either camp.
(13:58):
They're out there going race to raise, voting their self interest,
in voting their instincts. So you can fairly compare them
to jurors.
Speaker 7 (14:08):
Right.
Speaker 1 (14:09):
They're jurors in this case that's being tried in the
six swing states, and they're jurors who are going to
decide the case of Trump v. Harris. And there is
a direct, perfect analogy now between not you and me,
or not your friends who are Democrats, we don't matter,
(14:31):
but there's a direct analogy between these undecided swing state
voters and jurors. And this I can tell you from
forty years of trying cases and hopefully forty more to come.
Jurors like these swing state voters above all, they want
direct answers to important questions. I'll tell you every case
(14:55):
I've ever tried, the second to witness I'm cross examining
and will not answer a key, legitimate, important question directly.
I win. It's better for me if they don't answer
the question, if they're obviously evasive, then if they give
me the answer I want. Because when you are a
(15:18):
juror in a trial, and everybody listening to who's been
one knows this is true. Just like if you are
an undecided swing state voter, somebody wants something from you.
Somebody wants something from that voter, they darn well better
answer the key questions directly. And what hurts Kamala Harris
(15:40):
far more than any lie is when she refuses to
answer the questions when she obviously evades the core question.
And the core question which the debate opened with last
night was are you better off? You know, Kamala Harris,
do you think people are better off today than they
(16:01):
were four years ago? And Kamala Harris blatantly, unequivocally dodged
the question. That's where she lost the debate. That's the
ultimate insult to these swing state voters, and it was
part of a pattern over the course of the evening.
And now you hear it turning up and the focus
groups that are being done afterwork by focus groups of
(16:24):
independent voters being done by lefting networks. When she decided
to avoid that fair question and dodge it, that's where
she lost you know who? She also lost there. I mean,
he'll still vote for Jake Tapper. This is just a
short time ago on CNN.
Speaker 5 (16:38):
Going right to my point, Vice President Harris began the
debate by punting the first question on the economy.
Speaker 7 (16:47):
Do you believe Americans are better off than they were
four years ago?
Speaker 2 (16:51):
So I was raised as a middle class kid, and
I am actually the only person.
Speaker 1 (16:56):
She lost it right there. Fair question deserves an answer.
She knew it was coming, and she profoundly disrespected the
swing state voters by refusing to answer it and then
launching off into these talking points and.
Speaker 2 (17:13):
On the stage, who has a plan that is about
lifting up the middle class and working people of America?
Speaker 5 (17:18):
They went on from there. Despite the economy being the
number one issue facing the country, the sitting Vice president
generally reverted to talking points about a few of her
policy proposals. Even harris allies today are saying that she
needs to talk more about what she will do for Americans.
Speaker 1 (17:35):
Yeah, drop the mic. That's Jake Tepper on CNN, And
there were multiple examples of that, and of course ABC
didn't follow up with her because they were protecting her,
But ironically, you know, they ended up helping Trump because
I'm telling you, nothing's going to offend a jur more
than the witness refusing to answer a fair, direct question.
(17:59):
So I think she really hurt herself profoundly. I think
what you just heard from Tapper, and that was just
a short time ago, I think confirms that. So bottom line,
a win for her had to mean changing the arc
of this race. I think clearly she lost, and that's
why she immediately wanted a second debate. Should Donald Trump
debate her again. You're on the Dan Kapla Show.
Speaker 3 (18:27):
You're listening to the Dan Kaplis Show podcast.
Speaker 1 (18:30):
Here's the key point I touched on in the last segment.
Voters assumed that candidates on both sides lie, right, So
what hurt Harris so badly last night were not her lies.
What hurt her so badly was doing something that I
think offends many swing state voters, just like many jurors
(18:52):
much more, and that is refusing to answer a direct
question dodging and important direct questions, such as Vice President Harris,
do you think that people are better off now than
they were four years ago? It goes beyond even that,
the terrible, terrible reaction to a lie when somebody will
(19:13):
not even show you the courtesy the respect of answering
an important question. I think she really hurt herself that way,
and the sound I played from Jake Tapper at the
beginning proved it. He went off on her on it,
Cindy in beautiful Fremont County, you're on the dan Kaplas show.
Speaker 4 (19:29):
Welcome, Hello, thanks for taking my call. I understand the
debate was definitely biased and that was unfortunate, But I
also felt like Trump was not prepared. I was disappointed
that he couldn't be succinct and go on the attack
on his answers and for those people that only, oh,
(19:49):
only Trump can win this election, nobody else. I just
felt like, you know, somebody younger up there may have
been a little bit more humble and willing to really
prep and to know how to go on the attack.
So I was disappointed.
Speaker 1 (20:05):
Cindy, what a brilliant call. It gets into two very
important things in my opinion. First, you're absolutely right. If
President Trump had done traditional debate prep, he would have
been so much better last night, taking advantages, taking advantage
of openings, etc. Very frustrating to me, and it has
been since sixteen that he won't do traditional debate prep.
(20:27):
But I think you know from your life. I know
from mine that whether it's you, Cindy or me, Dan
or Ryan or Kelly or Donald Trump, that many of
the same things that can make us great in the
ways that we're all great, you know, can can also
be a liability in another area. President Trump is stubborn.
(20:47):
That stubbornness can be as great as strength when it
comes to debate prep. I think it bit him in
the butt. But at that point, Cindy conclude that we'd
be better off with another candidate. Here's why I respectfully disagree. Okay,
and I've said before I would have been thrilled with
Ron DeSantis as a nominee. But here's why Trump, in
my opinion, gives us the best chance to win. Because
(21:08):
it's only Donald Trump who can get this massive turnout
from people who normally don't vote because they see him
as the opposite of a normal politician. That's how he
won in sixteen, That's how I think he's going to
win this time. In the New York Times poll that
came out over the weekend, it showed him with an
enormous advantage over folks who don't vote very often. So
(21:31):
that's why I think he still gives us the best
chance to win. Hey, appreciate the call, Cindy. What a
great question, great way to start. Let's go to Mike
in Denver. You're on the Dan Kapolo Show. Lines are full.
Speaker 7 (21:43):
Welcome Mike, mister caplis. Thank you for taking Mike halg
scraight to be with you again. So just a couple
of quick things here. First of all, you know about
Kamala Harris falsely claiming she never said that she would
she said she would never ban fracking. She's clearly on
camera seeing multiple times in the past she was banned fracking.
But ABC David Murr, they did not fact check that,
(22:07):
but they fact checked Trump. Second one, Mike.
Speaker 1 (22:09):
May have stopped you on that, real quick stop you
on that because no criticism of you. You're using the term.
Everybody does fact check. But I just want to make
the point that what is being labeled fact checking quote
unquote by ABC is actually election interference. It's ABC participating
in the debate. When they did their quote fact checks,
(22:32):
they were actually jumping into the ring and debating Trump themselves.
So go ahead, my friend.
Speaker 7 (22:39):
Well that's a really good point, Dan, And as Ryan
pointed out earlier, if they're going to do it for
Kamala or if they're going to do it for Trump,
they need to do it for Kamala. It needs to
be unbiased and fair. And they definitely did not do that.
I think that they fact checked Trump seven times. They
factored my Brotherma zero times.
Speaker 1 (22:57):
My brother. How old are you, Mike?
Speaker 7 (22:59):
I am twenty.
Speaker 1 (23:00):
Awesome, So glad of you, So glad you're listening. Here's
my point. They weren't trying to hide it. These Harris
staffers who were moderating the debate weren't trying to hide
their bias. They're proud of it. They wanted the world
to see it. They are the king and queen of
their profession today because most of their profession have just
(23:21):
become political activists. They're heroes. They weren't trying to hide it.
Speaker 7 (23:26):
Yeah. Absolutely, And I think I think that ties into
you know, Kamala havy ties with you know, upper level executives,
ABC and whatnot. I mean, that could be speculation. I
think that's part of it. Another thing, really quick, I
just wanted to mention when they were talking about Obamacare,
they tried to point out that Trump, you know, tried
to repeal the Affordable Care Act almost sixty times during
(23:48):
his presidency without a replacement. And they tried to keep
bringing up, well, what's your plan, what's your plan? Well
he's not, you know, he still needs time to make
up a plan. But I guess the point they were
trying to point out is, well, they tried to he
tried to repeel it without a Medicare country.
Speaker 1 (24:06):
Can we do this, Mike, because you're hitting on such
an important point even before we get to the policy weeds.
This is another example of how if President Trump had
done traditional debate prep, he would have been better, right, absolutely,
because then you would have been ready for a relatively
obscure question. But Mike, that question put a smile on
my face when I heard it last night, because you
(24:28):
know that Harris's team in this case, mirror, they were
not going to a question like that unless they thought
Trump was on track to win the race, right, because
who sits around the water cooler these days talking about Obamacare.
I mean, they know at this point, on the core
issues in this race that matter to people, Trump is
on track to win this election.
Speaker 7 (24:50):
Yeah, exactly, and they know that, you know, all Kamala
wants to do is improve the Obamacare plan we already
have in place. They know that she doesn't want to
make something better. That's why they asked the question because
they know obviously Trump doesn't have a plan in place,
because Obamacare is the law of the land right now.
So it clearly is a bias question in a gotcha
(25:12):
question in a way.
Speaker 1 (25:13):
I think, Oh, I think it was a gotcha Mike,
appreciate the call. And again this is where listen, President
Trump should have been better prepared for the debate. He
should have done excuse me not getting emotional, it's peanut butter,
should have done traditional debate prep and with his great mind,
and he showed a great mind and great presence and
(25:34):
great temperament in that incredibly challenging scenario multiple times last night.
If he had done traditional debate prep, then a gotcha
surprise question like that probably would have anticipated and done
away with as it was it made him look bad
that he could just talk about the concept of a plan,
but that wasn't going to have any long term impact.
(25:54):
You know, he was great on the areas that are
going to have long term impact. He did a great,
great job of circling back to the border over and
over and over again.
Speaker 6 (26:05):
We have millions of people pouring into our country from
prisons and jails, from mental institutions and insane asylums, and
they're coming in and they're taking jobs that are occupied
right now by African Americans and Hispanics, and also unions.
Unions are going to be affected.
Speaker 1 (26:23):
When he went on and on, but he did a
great job of repeatedly coming back to that. Yeah, very frustrating.
He missed so many openings, but in the end, keep
in mind that's not going to hurt him a fraction
of what a big gaff would have, and there were
no big gaffes. Scott and Littleton, you're on the Dan
Kapla Show.
Speaker 8 (26:41):
Welcome, Hi, Dan. I kind of disagree with you. First
of all, I support TRUMPO vote for him, My wife
supports him, and I'll vote for him. But I think
he was disgusting last night and I'll just give you
three question sures. First of all, he has a real grungey,
(27:01):
ugly face all night. He has that monotone voice. He's
a lousy speaker. Really for someone that uh that rich.
He he really turns off women. My wife got turned
off several times.
Speaker 1 (27:17):
Why she vote them things?
Speaker 8 (27:18):
They said, Well, because.
Speaker 1 (27:23):
You know Kamala is sure enough, I get it, and
I interrupted you. So we've got grungey face, lousy speaker,
what else?
Speaker 8 (27:33):
And and he's not very clever when uh Kamala went
and started in on you know, some of the Republicans
that have turned against him, for instance, like McCain. He
needs to have some good comeback. Can't be that dumb.
And he kind of come back and said, you know,
(27:54):
first of all, I'll take her not supporting me as
a badge of honor. I mean, this lady got voted
out of Wyoming and her seat in Wyoming actually had
for many years.
Speaker 1 (28:05):
And if you could do me a favorite, as Scott,
I'm not pausing you because you disagree with me. I'm
hoping you come back after the break. We've got to
hit this hard break. But you're absolutely right. There were
so many obvious openings for the president last night that
he missed on balance, though I still believe she did
not win for the reasons I opened the show with.
He avoided any major gaps. He did very well in
(28:26):
certain categories. But to Scott's good point, when it comes
to saying, oh, Dick Cheney's endorsing me, Trump should have
been very, very prepared to just turn to her and say,
you know, from Trump's perspective, yeah, because you're both warmongers. Yeah,
but yeah, just miss so many of those opportunities. All
I'm suggesting is when we step back and we look
(28:48):
at this in the scope of did she do what
she needed to do to change the arc of this race,
which is our conturor Trump victory? Clearly she didn't, or
she wouldn't have asked immediately afterwards for the second debate.
You're on the Dankpla Show.
Speaker 3 (29:04):
And now back to the dan Kapla Show podcast.
Speaker 1 (29:07):
Breaking down last night's event. You can see why I've
refused to call debate for weeks leading up to it,
because you could tell it was going to be rigged,
and it was now no surprise, right, and Trump needed
to be prepared for that under the circumstances. I think
in a lot of ways. He did very well, obviously
missed a lot of opportunities. I wish he would do
(29:28):
traditional debate prep if he's going to do another one
of these debates, which I think would be a mistake
because I think he's our contured victory right now. I
think that he should do traditional debate prep eight five
to five for zero five eight two five five text
d an five seven, seven thirty nine. But I think
he he was a brilliant at different points during this
(29:50):
three on one last night. One of the things I
think he did best and then I'll get back and
we have great text as well as calls, is the
way he flipped the J six question. I think it
was one one of his strongest individual moments. Is there
anything you regret about what you did on that day?
Speaker 6 (30:06):
You just said a thing that isn't covered peacefully and patriotically,
I said during my speech, not later on, peacefully and patriotically.
And nobody on the other side was killed. Ashley Babbitt
was shot by an out of control police officer that
should have never ever shot her. It's a disgrace, but
(30:29):
we didn't do this group of people that have been
treated so badly.
Speaker 1 (30:33):
And here comes the pivot that I thought was so effective.
Speaker 6 (30:37):
I ask, what about all the people that are pouring
into our country and killing people that she allowed to
poort in? She was the boatis are? Remember that she
was the borders are. She doesn't want to be called
the boordosar because she's embarrassed by the voter efact. She
said at the beginning, Oh, I'm surprised you're not talking
about the boarder yet. That's because she knows what a
bad job they've done. What about those people? What are
(30:57):
they going to be prosecuted? One of these people from
countries all over the world, not just South America.
Speaker 1 (31:03):
And then he went on on that. I thought it
was a very very effective pivot because it's a great point.
It's absolutely a great point that goes to something fundamentally
un American and dangerous to the foundation of this nation,
which is having a two tier justice system. Different justice
system if you're a lefty and lefties are in power,
and then conservatives not that they just don't get the
(31:24):
same kind of justice. And I'm not defending anything that
happened on j six, I'm just talking about Trump making
a very fair point there. Eight five to five for
zero five A two five five text d an five
seven seven three nine. If you just joined us, thank you.
But I think Jake Tapper, what he said this afternoon
confirms my core belief that Kamala Harris did not win
(31:45):
that debate. And winning means doing what you have to
do to change the arc of the race. Anything short
of that, how could that be a win for her?
And she lost it in the first two minutes and
then repeated this pattern throughout where she would to answer
important direct questions. And I think when it comes to jurors,
which is my world, and I think swing state voters,
(32:07):
that's the same mentality. I think when you refuse to
answer a direct question, you lose them.
Speaker 5 (32:13):
Vice President Harris began the debate by punting the first
question on the economy.
Speaker 7 (32:19):
Do you believe Americans are better off than they were
four years ago?
Speaker 2 (32:23):
So I was raised as a middle class kid, and
I am actually the only person on this stage who
has a plan that is about lifting up the middle
class and working people of America.
Speaker 5 (32:35):
It went on from there. Despite the economy being the
number one issue facing the country, the sitting Vice president
generally reverted to talking points about a few of her
policy proposals. Even Harris allies today are saying that she
needs to talk more about what she will do for
Americans if elected. Senator Bernie Sanders will be here in
a second.
Speaker 1 (32:54):
Yeah, And then he went on on that. See, even
Jake Tepper in the left are making that point. And
that's why she came out right afterwards, right minutes afterwards,
and offered a second debate. Was taunting Trump to agree
to second debate. If she really thought she had done
what she needed to do to change the arc of
the race, she wouldn't do that, right, But listen, the cabal.
(33:15):
The cabal is sophisticated, and you can be sure that
they had legitimately screened focus group members working dials in
all of the swing states during that debate. And you
know how dials work, right, So rather than writing down
notes or being interviewed later, they are real time turning
dials up or down depending upon how they're reacting to
(33:37):
what's being said on the screen. And so you can
be certain that the Harris camp knew second by second
as it moved through this event whether they were accomplishing
what they needed to in the debate, and they clearly
saw that they were not. That's why they offered the
second one. That's why I think he'd be crazy to
agree to a second debate. I know I have a
lot of very kind Texters asking whether I think he
(34:00):
should agree to a second debate. If I'm right and
he's tracking toward victory right now, then there's no way
he should agree to a second event like this in
my opinion, even if it's on Fox. But I'd love
to get your take. It's all about winning, right, It's
all about saving the country by winning, So why would
you take that chance if you're tracking toward victory here?
(34:22):
And it's clearly why she wants another one.
Speaker 3 (34:26):
Dan.
Speaker 1 (34:27):
We may not agree with how the fact checking and
mattering went, but it's not Harris's fault, so I think
you should stop blaming her. But I'm not blaming Harris
for ABC deciding to rig this event, engage in election
interference and disgrace journalism. I'm not blaming Harris for that.
What I'm saying is it's going to hurt Harris because
(34:49):
they created a situation where she had the best night
possible because she was thoroughly protected. And if the numbers
don't move dramatically in her favor. Right now, it's a
clear message America ain't buying what she's selling.
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.