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