Why Does No One Understand the Real Reason Trump Won?

I’ve had a lot of conversations since Tuesday revolving around the question of why Donald Trump won. The economy and inflation. Kamala Harris didn’t do this or that. Sexism and racism. The border. That trans-inmate ad that ran a jillion times. And so on.

These conversations have usually proceeded along lines where people ask incredulously how a majority of voters could have believed this or that. Weren’t they bothered that Trump is a convicted felon? An adjudicated rapist? Didn’t his invocation of violence against Liz Cheney, or 50 other examples of his disgusting imprecations, obviously disqualify him? And couldn’t they see that Harris, whatever her shortcomings, was a fundamentally smart, honest, well-meaning person who would show basic respect for the Constitution and wouldn’t do anything weird as president?

The answer is obviously no—not enough people were able to see any of those things. At which point people throw up their hands and say, “I give up.”

But this line of analysis requires that we ask one more question. And it’s the crucial one: Why didn’t a majority of voters see these things? And understanding the answer to that question is how we start to dig out of this tragic mess.

The answer is the right-wing media. Today, the right-wing media—Fox News (and the entire News Corp.), Newsmax, One America News Network, the Sinclair network of radio and TV stations and newspapers, iHeart Media (formerly Clear Channel), the Bott Radio Network (Christian radio), Elon Musk’s X, the huge podcasts like Joe Rogan’s, and much more—sets the news agenda in this country. And they fed their audiences a diet of slanted and distorted information that made it possible for Trump to win.

Let me say that again, in case it got lost: Today, the right-wing media sets the news agenda in this country. Not The New York Times. Not The Washington Post (which bent over backwards to exert no influence when Jeff Bezos pulled the paper’s Harris endorsement). Not CBS, NBC, and ABC. The agenda is set by all the outlets I listed in the above paragraph. Even the mighty New York Times follows in its wake, aping the tone they set disturbingly often.

If you read me regularly, you know that I’ve written this before, but I’m going to keep writing it until people—specifically, rich liberals, who are the only people in the world who have the power to do something about this state of affairs—take some action.

I’ve been in the media for three decades, and I’ve watched this happen from the front row. Fox News came on the air in 1996. Then, it was an annoyance, a little bug the mainstream media could brush off its shoulder. There was also Rush Limbaugh; still, no comparison between the two medias. Rush was talented, after a fashion anyway, but couldn’t survive in a mainstream lane (recall how quickly the experiment of having him be an ESPN color commentator went off the rails.) But in the late 1990s, and after the Internet exploded and George W. Bush took office, the right-wing media grew and grew. At first, the liberal media grew as well along with the Internet, in the form of a robust blogosphere that eventually spawned influential, agenda-setting web sites like HuffPost. But billionaires on the right have invested far more heavily in media in the last two decades than their counterparts on the left—whose ad-supported, VC-funded operations started to fizzle out once social media and Google starting eating up the revenue pie.

And the result is what we see today. The readily visual analogy I use is: Once upon a time, the mainstream media was a beachball, and the right-wing media was a golf ball. Today, the mainstream media (what with layoffs and closures and the near death of serious local news reporting) is the size of a volleyball, and the right-wing media is the size of a basketball, which, in case you’re wondering, is bigger.

This is the year in which it became obvious that the right-wing media has more power than the mainstream media. It’s not just that it’s bigger. It’s that it speaks with one voice, and that voice says Democrats and liberals are treasonous elitists who hate you, and Republicans and conservatives love God and country and are your last line of defense against your son coming home from school your daughter.

And that is why Donald Trump won. Indeed, the right-wing media is why he exists in our political lives in the first place. Don’t believe me? Try this thought experiment. Imagine Trump coming down that escalator in 2015 with no right-wing media; no Fox News; an agenda still set, and mores still established, by staid old CBS News, the House of Murrow, and The New York Times.

That atmosphere would have denied an outrageous figure like Trump the oxygen he needed to survive and flourish. He just would not have been taken seriously at all. In that world, ruled by a traditional mainstream media, Trump would have been seen by Republicans as a liability, and they would have done what they failed to do in real life—banded together to marginalize him.

But the existence of Fox changed everything. Fox hosted the early debates, which Trump won not with intelligence, but outrageousness. He tapped into the grievance culture Fox had nursed among conservatives for years. He had (most of the time) Rupert Murdoch’s personal blessing. In 2015-16, Fox made Trump possible.

And this year, Fox and the rest of the right-wing media elected him. I discussed all this Thursday with Matthew Gertz of Media Matters for America, who watches lots of Fox News so the rest of us don’t have to. He made the crucial point—and you must understand this—that nearly all the crazy memes that percolated into the news-stream during this election came not from Trump or JD Vance originally, but from somewhere in the right-wing media ecosystem.

The fake story about Haitian residents of Springfield, Ohio eating cats and dogs, for example, started with a Facebook post citing second- and third-hand sources, Gertz told me; it then “circulated on X and was picked up by all the major right-wing influencers.” Only then did Vance, a very online dude, notice it and decide to run with it. And then Trump said it himself at the debate. But it started in the right-wing media.

Likewise with the post-debate ABC “whistleblower” claims, which Gertz wrote about at the time. This was the story that ABC, which hosted the only presidential debate this election, fed Team Harris the questions in advance. This started, Gertz wrote, as a “wildly flimsy internet rumor launched by a random pro-Trump X poster.” Soon enough, the right-wing media was all over it.

Maybe that one didn’t make a huge difference (although who knows?), but this one, I believe, absolutely did: the idea that Harris and Joe Biden swiped emergency aid away from the victims of Hurricane Helene (in mostly Southern, red states) and gave it all to undocumented migrants. It did not start with Trump or his campaign or Vance or the Republican National Committee or Lindsey Graham. It started on Fox. Only then did the others pick it up. And it was key, since this was a moment when Harris’s momentum in the polling averages began to flag.

I think a lot of people who don’t watch Fox or listen to Sinclair radio don’t understand this crucial chicken-and-egg point. They assume that Trump says something, and the right-wing media amplify it. That happens sometimes. But more often, it’s the other way around. These memes start in the media sphere, then they become part of the Trump agenda.

I haven’t even gotten to the economy, about which there is so much to say. Yes—inflation is real. But the Biden economy has been great in many ways. The U.S. economy, wrote The Economist in mid-October, is “the envy of the world.” But in the right-wing media, the horror stories were relentless. And mainstream economic reporting too often followed that lead. Allow me to make the world’s easiest prediction: After 12:00 noon next January 20, it won’t take Fox News and Fox Business even a full hour to start locating every positive economic indicator they can find and start touting those. Within weeks, the “roaring Trump economy” will be conventional wisdom. (Eventually, as some of the fruits from the long tail of Bidenomics start growing on the vine, Trump may become the beneficiary of some real-world facts as well, taking credit for that which he opposed and regularly denounced.)

Back to the campaign. I asked Gertz what I call my “Ulan Bator question.” If someone moved to America from Ulan Bator, Mongolia in the summer and watched only Fox News, what would that person learn about Kamala Harris? “You would know that she is a very stupid person,” Gertz said. “You’d know that she orchestrated a coup against Joe Biden. That she’s a crazed extremist. And that she very much does not care about you.”

Same Ulan Bator question about Trump? That he’s been “the target of a vicious witch-hunt for years and years,” that he is under constant assault; and most importantly, that he is “doing it all for you.”

To much of America, by the way, this is not understood as one side’s view of things. It’s simply “the news.” This is what people—white people, chiefly—watch in about two-thirds of the country. I trust that you’ve seen in your travels, as I have in mine, that in red or even some purple parts of the country, when you walk into a hotel lobby or a hospital waiting room or even a bar, where the TVs ought to be offering us some peace and just showing ESPN, at least one television is tuned to Fox. That’s reach, and that’s power. And then people get in their cars to drive home and listen to an iHeart, right-wing talk radio station. And then they get home and watch their local news and it’s owned by Sinclair, and it, too, has a clear right-wing slant. And then they pick up their local paper, if it still exists, and the oped page features Cal Thomas and Ben Shapiro.

Liberals, rich and otherwise, live in a bubble where they never see this stuff. I would beg them to see it. Watch some Fox. Listen to some Christian radio. Experience the news that millions of Americans are getting on a daily basis. You’ll pretty quickly come to understand what I’m saying here.

And then contemplate this fact: If you think they’re done, you’re in fantasy land. They’re not happy with the rough parity, the slight advantage they have now. They want media domination. Sinclair bought the once glorious Baltimore Sun. Don’t think they’ll stop there. I predict Sinclair or the News Corp. will own The Washington Post one day. Maybe sooner than we think.

I implore you. Contemplate this. If you’re of a certain age, you have a living memory of revolutions in what we used to call the Third World. Question: What’s the first thing every guerilla army, whether of the left or the right, did once they seized the palace? They took over the radio or television station. First. There’s a reason for that.

It’s the same reason Viktor Orban told CPAC in 2022: “Have your own media.”

This is a crisis. The Democratic brand is garbage in wide swaths of the country, and this is the reason. Consider this point. In Missouri on Tuesday, voters passed a pro-abortion rights initiative, and another that raised the minimum wage and mandated paid leave. These are all Democratic positions. But as far as electing someone to high office, the Man-Boy Love Party could probably come closer than the Democrats. Trump beat Harris there by 18 points, and Senator Josh Hawley beat Lucas Kunce, who ran a good race and pasted Hawley in their debate, by 14 points.

The reason? The right-wing media. And it’s only growing and growing. And I haven’t even gotten to social media and Tik Tok and the other platforms from which far more people are getting their news these days. The right is way ahead on those fronts too. Liberals must wake up and understand this and do something about it before it’s too late, which it almost is.

At closing argument time, it turns out that Donald Trump is making Kamala Harris’s closing argument. What is it? That women should not vote for him. He is making the case better than she ever could. And it looks like it may be sticking.

Let’s start with what Trump said to Tucker Carlson about Liz Cheney at a forum Thursday night. It is, straight up, a very strong contender for the most shocking and vile thing he’s ever said. I know that’s saying something, but judge for yourself: “She’s a radical war hawk. Let’s put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her, OK? Let’s see how she feels about it. You know, when the guns are trained on her face.”

Cheney is a war hawk. I disagree with her about all that. But that’s neither here nor there. A candidate for president of the United States just called for a fellow American to face a firing squad. A firing squad! Who’s the last presidential candidate to do that? Maybe someone like 1820 also-ran William Crawford? More likely no one, ever.

Some might argue that Trump was merely noting that Cheney had never been in the literal line of fire in combat, because he went on to talk about the swagger of Beltway interventionists like Cheney and John Bolton: “They’re all war hawks when they’re sitting in Washington in a nice building.” I’ve opposed most U.S. wars of my lifetime (I thought we were morally and legally justified in responding to September 11 in Afghanistan but worried that we’d overdo it, which of course we did), but I’ve always found that to be a real cheap-seats line—if you’re so crazy about war, why don’t you go fight it? No. If you oppose a war, oppose it on serious grounds, not on the basis of peanut-gallery arguments like that.

But Trump knew exactly what he was saying here—intentionally suggesting that Cheney should face a firing squad, but doing so in such a way that he could plausibly deny it. No prominent candidate for office has ever taken the next step of saying let’s put such a person in front of a firing squad. It’s a literal and specific sentence of death for a literal and specific human being, and that’s what makes it so outrageous.

And it’s not an accident that he said it about a woman. Trump has contempt for all of humanity, but his contempt for women is special, because women aren’t full human beings with intellect and agency in the same way men are. They’re there for sex, and if they’re not hot enough for sex, why are they hanging around taking up space, food, and water?

Which brings us to Trump’s second hideous comment of the week about women, that he’s going to protect them “whether the women like it or not.” Again, he pulled his usual trick of using plausible deniability language; what he meant, he continued, was that he’s going to protect them from migrants and foreign attacks (and I guess his rhetoric has become so offensive on so many levels that the clearly fascist nature of this pledge—that Dear Leader personally will protect them—is now worth only a parenthetical).

Whatever he meant, whatever was sludging through that sewer in his brain when he spoke the words, lots of people (not just women) took the remark as Trump reminding women of the power he has already exercised over their lives and will exercise again if he’s returned to the White House. And that properly freaks a lot of women out.

A month ago in Georgia, Candi Miller, a married mother of three who had lupus and diabetes, found that she was pregnant. She’d been warned by doctors that another baby could dramatically endanger her health. She ordered abortion pills online. They didn’t quite work. She was in need of a procedure that is fairly common—but that the state of Georgia had recently made illegal. She died. She didn’t want to visit a doctor, her family told the coroner, “due to the current legislation on pregnancies and abortions.”

That’s just one of many stories we now know about in which women and their doctors have been forced into impossible conversations and decisions because of the hideous laws passed after Trump’s Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. These stories are abstract to men. I very much doubt they’re abstract to women.

And finally: Trump really said Thursday that he’s going to put Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in charge of women’s health? Does he think women don’t hear this, and they don’t understand that Kennedy (before he ended his presidential campaign) said he’d sign a national abortion ban and that he might deny their children vaccines?

They do. And it seems they’re paying attention. The early voters so far are 54 percent women and 44 percent men. That seems an encouraging sign.

People are writing a lot of articles about the gender gap. Supposedly, it’s lower than expected. Supposedly, men are breaking for Trump by larger percentages than women are breaking for Harris.

Of course, this could end up being true. But two points: One, the margin of error on subgroups within polls is high. So say there’s a poll that shows Trump leads among men by 14 but Harris leads among women by only 11. But if the margin of error on those numbers is, say, five points, Trump could be winning men by as little as nine, and Harris could be leading among women by as much as 16. Such polls are not useless, but they’re also nothing to freak out about.

But second and more important: What matters more than the gender gap per se is what percentage of the overall electorate is female and male. In 2020, according to exit polls, the electorate was 52 percent women and 48 percent men. Isn’t it reasonable to think the female percentage might be a little higher? Might women not be a wee bit more motivated to turn out for Harris than they were for Joe Biden? Pollsters generally will not make that assumption; they tend to base their polls on past electorates. But let’s say women are, oh, just 53 percent of the electorate. If 180 million people vote, that’s 1.8 million voters. If Harris carries them with 55 or 56 percent (which I think is conservative), that’s one million more Harris votes. It depends on where they’re distributed, of course. But in a close election, that’s a lot of votes.

The media have obsessed over Black people and Latinos turned off by Harris and various other #Demsindisarray narratives. The enthusiasm of women for Harris is a storyline that has been entirely unexplored. Women, and Black women in particular, are invisible in the media, as I wrote two weeks ago. But they exist. And their votes count just as much as the votes of white working-class men in Wilkes-Barre.

It’s a close election. But Trump is getting weirder and more unhinged every day. Every hour. Who knows what he’ll be saying by Sunday? The true nature of the man is finally becoming unavoidable. And Harris is getting sturdier. A lot of men are too blinded by their prejudices or assumptions to notice this. I suspect women are noticing, in big numbers.

What the hell is this “debate” about whether Kamala Harris should call Donald Trump a fascist? It’s too … what? Too aggressive? Too in your face? It risks backlash?

Sorry, but that’s the advice of the people who’ve been advising Democrats to lose elections for years. The bottom line is this, and it’s really simple. In the last 10 days of a campaign, you’re either playing offense or defense. And if you’re playing defense, you’re going to lose.

The fascism charge is offense. Period. End of debate. Now, within that debate, there are more subtle conversations to be entertained. Should it be the main line of attack, or should it be a side attack? Should she bank everything on it? Fine, let’s discuss those things. But the big question ought to be settled. She should call Trump a fascist. She should do it because it’s playing offense, and she should do it because it’s true.

Trump is playing offense. It’s all lies as usual, but for some people, his just standing up there and saying things confuses and convinces them. At his rally Thursday night, Trump claimed he was “leading by a lot” in the polls. He ticked off a number of states where he claimed to be leading by “a lot.” He’s leading in none of them. He may be +2 in the occasional poll in Arizona, but that’s still margin-of-error territory. Most reputable polls have Arizona dead even. The only recent one where Trump is +3 is from a conservative pollster. And +3 is still within the margin of error.

But he says this stuff, and some people buy it. He also went on some riff about how Harris is weak and Xi Jinping can’t wait to steamroll her. This is obvious sexist garbage, to which her immediate response, if she deigns to give one, ought to be, “Well, Donald Trump and I went face to face. Who kicked whose ass across the stage and back? I hope Xi was watching that!” But still: Some people will see that Trump riff and just believe it.

It’s so important, in these closing days, to exude confidence, to look like a winner, to be on offense. A close election like this one might come down to this question of what’s on swing voters’ minds in these final days. Trump wants them thinking Harris is an incompetent failure. She wants them thinking he’s too dangerous and risky. Ergo—fascism and democracy.

Trump himself flung this door wide open when he said in an interview that he’d use the military to go after his political opponents. That’s what prompted John Kelly to speak to The New York Times. It may prove to be a key moment in this campaign if others follow, particularly James Mattis.

Harris has worked all that into her stump speech. Thursday night in Atlanta, she invoked Kelly’s remarks, and she quoted him quoting Trump to the effect that Hitler “did some good things.” I’d love to see her play with that a little. “Let’s see … what good things did Hitler do? He loved his dog. He didn’t smoke or drink …” Get some laughs at Trump’s expense.

I love the fact that she’s speaking next week from the same spot on the Ellipse where Trump gave his January 6 address. Her speech really needs to be blunt and direct. And here’s a crucial point: She needs to say something new in that speech. She needs to make news—to level some charge at Trump that she hasn’t leveled. That’s playing offense, and it will put him on defense.

Another advantage to all this is that it could goad Trump. Karl Rove was on Fox this week criticizing Trump for going off script. Harris can force more of this. If she needles him about Hitler, for example, she can goad him into talking about Hitler. Who knows what he’d say? He might actually list a few of those good things Hitler did. That’d be news.

She still needs to talk about the economy. And she is. That’s actually still her main message, and it should remain so. In talking-head land, they too often assume that if Harris starts talking about X, that means she’s stopped talking about Y. It’s ridiculous. If you look at the ads the Harris campaign is running the most in the swing states, they’re practically all economy-based.

And the ones that aren’t about the economy are about the other issue that needs to be central in the home stretch: abortion. Some say she’s wasting her time in Houston tonight because she has no chance of winning Texas. But that isn’t the point. The point is to highlight the cruelty of Texas’s anti-abortion law. And to share a stage with a Houston native named Beyoncé. And with Willie Nelson too!

So she’s sticking to the core messages. But fascism and democracy—and Adolf Hitler, specifically, because more people know who Hitler was than know what fascism is, and because she might get Trump to talk about Hitler—absolutely have to be part of the closing mix. Play offense. Look strong. Step on his neck. It’s time.

Polls, polls, polls. Way too many polls, way too much media coverage and obsession with polls. Right? Well … it depends on which ones. Because there is one set of polls that isn’t driving much press coverage at all, and I find it interesting and telling.

Since the day Kamala Harris got in the race, she has consistently led Donald Trump on the question of voter enthusiasm. She led by a lot when she first entered the race in late July because Democratic enthusiasm for Joe Biden was at a serious low, and because the mere fact that the Democrats made a change—and that she came out of gate with such swagger—made rank-and-file Democrats feel such a burst of relief.

That carried on through the Democratic convention. A Gallup poll from late August (right after the convention) showed Democratic enthusiasm at 79 percent—one point short of the all-time high, which was during the 2008 Barack Obama–Hillary Clinton primary—and Republican enthusiasm at just 64 percent.

Since then, Republican enthusiasm has gotten closer to Democratic levels, but in the several recent polls I looked over this week, Democratic enthusiasm was still higher. This Gallup result from October 6 was representative. When asked if they were more enthusiastic this time around than in previous elections, 80 percent of Democrats said yes, as did 75 percent of Republicans.

So Democratic voters are in fact enthusiastic about Harris—a shade more enthusiastic than Republican voters are about Trump. But ask yourself: Is that reality reflected in the media coverage you see? My own answer to that question is a thundering no.

This is admittedly unscientific, and undoubtedly, I’ve missed some stuff. But what I mostly see and hear and read is this: Trump voters love their man (and many do, of course). Black and Hispanic voters are tepid on Harris. She hasn’t “made the sale.” Black men in particular are skeptical. She’s in a danger zone.

Some of this is true and borne out by polling, and of course it’s necessary to report on it. But meanwhile, where, in the media narrative, is the Democratic enthusiasm? Where are the voters who admire and even adore Harris and can’t wait to go pull the lever for her?

They’re mostly invisible.

They’re mostly invisible because they are chiefly based in two groups, neither of whom is of the remotest interest to the press. The first is college-educated people, mostly white but of all races. These people’s votes count just like anybody else’s, but to political journalism, they don’t count because they’re not real Americans. Real Americans eat carb-heavy breakfasts in diners in Altoona and Saginaw. They don’t eat tofu scrambles in Bucks County or Buckhead. They didn’t attend private colleges, they don’t go to gyms, they don’t drive hybrids, they don’t drink lattes.

So as far as political journalism is concerned, these voters don’t exist. It’s all a bit paradoxical and frankly a little twisted, since virtually all journalists are members of the tofu-scramble class, but that only accentuates the matter, because journalists feel a collective guilt about all the above that makes them dismiss voters like them as uninteresting.

And sure, there’s a dog-bites-man element to those voters backing a candidate such as Harris. But I submit there are still stories there. Are these voters as enthusiastic as they were in 2020? Are they out there door knocking and phone banking? Are donations coming in at high levels or low from those zip codes?

The other invisible group—and this is a far worse error—is Black women. If you Google something like “Black women Harris enthusiasm,” you’ll see a bushelful of articles from late July, when she first got in the race, when the #WinWithBlackWomen network famously enlisted 400,000 Black women to join a Zoom meeting the very night that Harris became the presumptive nominee. I saw a number of stories from that period.

But since the heat of the campaign post–Labor Day? I don’t see much. In fact, the first page of search results for the search term mentioned above includes a bunch of articles from July, a couple from August—and exactly one from September. Was it in The New York Times? The Washington Post? Was it an Associated Press or Reuters piece?

No. It was in The Atlanta Voice, the Black community newspaper in Atlanta.

Black women, as usual, are invisible to the political media. Oh, Oprah’s town hall made news. But generally speaking, if you’re a Black woman in this country and you want a bunch of microphones shoved in front of your face at election time, you’ll be way ahead of the game if you’re willing to say that Kamala Harris just doesn’t speak to you for some reason and Donald Trump is a savvy businessman.

Yes, again, there’s a dog-bites-man aspect to stories about Black women backing Harris. But isn’t there also a dog-bites-man quality to white rural voters backing Trump? Of course there is. And yet, I’m still seeing those stories, still seeing those people interviewed on cable news. Why? Because the political media (reporters, but I think mostly editors at mainstream outlets) are terrified of being seen as liberal. Of missing the Trump story, of opening themselves up to accusations of out-of-touch elitism.

The right is so effective at lobbing this grenade that mainstream outlets have collectively come to sense that there is a professional price to be paid for ignoring Trump voters. But there is no professional price to be paid for ignoring Black women. They’re ignored all the time anyway.

Is Harris in real trouble among Black voters? Maybe. Maybe not. This week’s NBC poll has her beating Trump 84–8 among Black respondents in battleground states. That’s up from 82–12 a month ago (Trump lost a third of his Black support! Isn’t that a story?), and it’s on par with Biden’s 2020 national margin among Black voters over Trump of 87–12, or indeed will be better than Biden’s margin, if Trump stays in single digits.

It’s a close race. There’s a lot to worry about. I worry every day, and you should too. But you should also remember this: Democratic voter enthusiasm is high—higher than Republican enthusiasm, according to numerous polls. From the way this race is being covered, you’d never know that. Harris’s enthusiastic voters, especially Black women, aren’t “real Americans.” They’re being erased from the narrative. By the “liberal” media.

Donald Trump announced Wednesday during a speech in Scranton, Pennsylvania, that he’ll be playing Madison Square Garden. His campaign has rented the self-proclaimed “World’s Most Famous Arena” for Sunday, October 27, and Trump said it means that “we’re going to make a play for New York.”

Trump is not going to win New York. Harris is 14 points ahead in the Empire State in the current FiveThirtyEight averages. That’s closer than the 2020 result of 23 points, but it still isn’t spitting distance. So we can say it’s a waste of his time and money, and that’s a good thing. But it’s not entirely stupid either, and there’s a lesson in this for Kamala Harris and her campaign as we wind toward the home stretch.

But before we get to that, let’s just pause to note the creepy historical echo of a neofascist rally taking place at Madison Square Garden, because there was one of those before, and it’s the first thing I (and I’m sure many other people) thought of when I heard this news. I mean the famous rally held in the Garden (then a completely different building, but still named Madison Square Garden) on February 20, 1939, by the German American Bund and its leader, Fritz Kuhn.

This was a pro-Nazi rally. The stage was adorned with a gigantic image of George Washington surrounded by stars and stripes. There were also swastikas and Hitler salutes galore among the 22,000 attendees. No, I’m not saying there will be swastikas this time around, although one can’t help but wonder if the various white supremacist groups backing Trump will send contingents. The guy plays to semi-empty houses that are half the Garden’s size, so something’s going to need to be done to paper the room. If he hews to the custom of, say, GOP conventions, he’ll invite as many Black supporters as he can up on the stage with him.

So no, he’s not going to win New York, and yes, there are disturbing historical resonances at work here. But here’s the one way in which this rally isn’t stupid or offensive.

At this point in a presidential campaign, establishing momentum becomes important—having the look of a winner. As I’ve often said, the swing voters who’ll decide the election don’t have strong political allegiances; these are people who view politics, as Wisconsin Democratic chairman Ben Wikler recently said, the way we political-junkie types view Olympic sports—we know they exist, and we pay attention for a brief period every four years, and that’s it. We choose to root for non-American Olympic athletes based on a bunch of emotional and nonrational factors—whether we have warm or cool feelings toward their country, whether we like the way they carry themselves, the way they smile—and maybe most of all, whether they have a shot at winning. In the 100-meter dash, we’re more likely to cheer for the Jamaican who has a real chance of medaling than the guy from Norway or whatever; nothing against Norway.

So campaigns need to do things in the closing weeks to communicate momentum and exude winner-ness. Having an unexpected rally at an unexpected and famous place qualifies. It shakes things up a little. It dominates, or at least figures prominently into, the cable news menu for probably four days—two before, the day of, and one day after. And if Trump can actually fill the place, or come close, that too communicates energy.

Harris came out of the blocks with a massive burst of energy, which has certainly stalled to some extent. Heading into these final three weeks, she needs to create some new buzz. Simply doing more events will help. She just hasn’t been on the trail enough. She needs to show that she can still draw the thousands she was drawing in August. A new proposal or two will help. It’s hard to say how much policy matters at this point, especially against an opponent who has contempt for policy, but it can’t hurt. Her proposal on long-term home care this week was actually pretty important—it’s a huge hole in Medicare and would make a difference in millions of people’s lives. Surely that got through to some voters.

But at this point a campaign is mostly about gestures and stagecraft. The Harris campaign could use some events that create mojo. A surprise endorsement from a prominent Republican or some other unexpected person from the corporate world or the military or some such. An event that tops Trump’s on the same day—in a stadium, maybe, if she can fill it—and totally steals his thunder. That could take the form of a concert featuring some of her celebrity supporters if they can all be pulled together on the same date—Beyoncé, Bruce, Billie Eilish, John Legend, and most of all, you know who.

And just campaign, campaign, campaign. Look hungry. Look like you want it. I remember in 2000, Al Gore campaigned nonstop for the last 48 or maybe even 72 hours. I recall it making a difference. He was generally behind in the polls, and while yes, he did end up losing that race, he lost it on First Street Northeast (i.e., the Supreme Court) on December 12. He won it on November 7.

The Harris campaign has received criticisms, many of them deserved, in these recent weeks. But the campaign has also done a lot of things right. The polls say she has become the candidate of change, which is an extraordinarily hard thing for a sitting vice president to pull off. She has narrowed or, according to some polls, eliminated Trump’s advantage on the economy. She’s catching up among working-class voters, as Timothy Noah noted this week. So some of those ideas that the press finds boring, the small-business tax credit and so on, must be getting through to somebody.

But this is the time to win news cycles and be seen as being on offense, not defense. I sure hope the campaign has a few surprises up its sleeve.

If you know anything about the founding and history of the Republican Party, the symbolism of Thursday’s event where Liz Cheney appeared with Kamala Harris had to get your attention. This party that has descended into antidemocratic neofascism was founded in 1854 as a progressive beacon. The Whig Party was dissolving and split into anti- and pro-slavery factions. The Free Soil Party was well intentioned but small. But when the antislavery Whigs and the Free Soilers got together, then they had some numbers and some power. Within six years, they elected not just a president but the most courageous and consequential president in American history (yes, FDR is a close second in my book).

It all started in a schoolhouse in Ripon, Wisconsin, which sits less than a mile away from where Cheney appeared with Harris. Is Cheney a “Lincoln Republican”? In one sense, she’s not even close. Lincoln was a liberal. In addition to ending slavery, he made public universities possible and created the national railroad system. He levied the country’s first income tax, to pay for the Civil War. He was way too big-government for Liz.

But in another sense, yes, she is, because at least she believes in the union, the republic, and the Constitution. By the benighted current standards of her party, that earns her a gold star.

Do liberals love Liz Cheney? Of course not. Nor should we. She’s a super-hawkish neocon. She defended torture. There’s a reason she was ascending the ladder of GOP House leadership in the 2010s. Yes, she had a pedigree, but also, she was totally fine with everything the GOP stood for.

But then Trump happened, and she stood up to say no. That did take some guts, in that authoritarian party. It unambiguously cost her her career, as she surely knew it would. And now she’s talking about the “depraved cruelty” of Donald Trump and endorsing a Democrat. And it’s not as if Harris promised her anything—that she’d bomb Iran or whatever. Cheney did this because Harris “will be a president who will defend the rule of law.”

Will it matter? I think so, and so does Ben Wikler, the chairman of the Wisconsin Democratic Party and one of the best state party chairs in the country. On MSNBC Thursday night, Wikler identified two groups of voters who might be influenced by this endorsement.

The first group is low-information uncommitted voters. He used a great analogy to describe these people. “These are people,” he told Jen Psaki, “who think about politics the way you and I think about the javelin at the Olympics, which is something that we’re vaguely aware happens every four years, but it’s not something we’re seeking out.” Yes, there are such people. For these voters, Wikler said, “just hearing that Democrats and Republicans are all agreeing that Kamala Harris is the person” might matter.

His second group was more interesting. It consists of “highly engaged” Republicans whose first loyalty is not to Trump but to “the flag and the Constitution.” Cheney’s move shows these people that “you can be yourself with your conservative commitments” and vote for a Democrat.

How many such people are there? A lot. Let’s start with the fact that Nikki Haley got nearly 4.4 million votes in the primaries. That was 20 percent of the total number of votes cast. Now let’s extrapolate that out to a November electorate. In 2020, around 155 million people voted. According to CNN exit polls, 36 percent were Republican, or around 56 million.

And 20 percent of 56 million—that is, the extrapolated Haley vote—makes for a potential pool of anti-Trump Republicans of around 11 million. Now, most of them may not bother to vote, or will write in Ronald Reagan or whomever. But surely Cheney’s backing will help convince some of them that voting for Harris is all right. And if you throw in Republican-leaning independents, that pool grows by maybe another 20 million.

If Harris can harvest votes from these people while promising nothing more than that she isn’t Donald Trump and will defend the Constitution, why shouldn’t she? I’m for as many Republican endorsements of Harris as possible. Aside from signaling a green light to Republican voters, it’ll drive Trump up a wall.

The list of Harris’s GOP endorsers is growing. Former Arizona Senator Jeff Flake joined the band earlier this week. Flake is respected by independent voters in his state. If he campaigns with Harris, he too could move votes.

Meanwhile, the big questions in this arena: What’s up with Mitt Romney and George W. Bush? There are others, like former Trump chief of staff John Kelly. But Romney and Bush are the big fish. What in the world does either man have to lose? Romney is retiring. Bush paints and golfs. Both are richer than Croesus. I assume both want desperately to save their party from Trumpism. Isn’t the obvious best way to do that by encouraging their fellow Republicans to vote for Harris so they can end the scourge of Trumpism and get back to being a normal, warmongering, poor-people-penalizing, planet-scorching party again?

But seriously. If they were to back Harris, and Harris wins semi-convincingly with something like 15 percent of the Republican vote (around half that is normal), Trump will be finished. Not Trumpism. That will take a lot longer.

People like Romney and Bush should consider their place in history. In these next few years, the Republican Party will either corrupt itself beyond repair and crumble into out-and-out fascism, becoming the vehicle that ended the human race’s longest-lasting democratic experiment, or it will finally cast that off and begin to resurrect itself. Do they want to be among those who sat by and let the former happen or those who helped the latter take place? There’s a little schoolhouse in Ripon, Wisconsin, they might visit for inspiration.

Kamala Harris’s economic vision speech (delivered in Pittsburgh on Wednesday, a mere two days after yours truly wrote that she needed to give an economic vision speech!) was … fine. Was she offering the second coming of the New Deal? No. Her rhetoric is cautious. More cautious, as American Prospect editor David Dayen interestingly pointed out this week (because Dayen is strongly of the economic populist school), than the plan itself as described in an 82-page “fact sheet” distributed by the campaign. The plan, he wrote, is more progressive than the rhetoric. But on the stump, Harris is not suddenly going to morph into Elizabeth Warren.

And today she goes to the Arizona border to try to establish more swing-voter cred. Am I loving the fact that it’s become a big Democratic applause line that she wants to sign conservative GOP Senator James Lankford’s border security bill? No, not by a long shot. On the other hand, in purely naked political terms, is it smart to go at your opponent’s strengths? Yes, it is.

It’s pretty basic politics. Trump, for all his extremism, does this frequently. Think of his twisted pitch to women this week. Campaigns that successfully neutralize the other side’s advantages tend to win (George W. Bush on John Kerry’s war record). Campaigns that let disadvantages fester tend to lose (Mitt Romney not convincingly answering Barack Obama’s Bain Capital–related attacks).

So Harris is cutting into Trump’s advantages on those two issues. That’s fine, especially with respect to the economy. But issues are the science of campaigning. There’s an art to campaigning too, and it’s on this front that the Harris campaign needs to keep pushing, because it’s here where her biggest advantage over Trump lies.

Jonathan V. Last of The Bulwark had a smart piece this week reminding us that campaigns consist of news cycles, and the point of news cycles is to win them. Remember how Harris came out of the gate like a rocket in July? That’s because she was doing everything right. She was making news and winning news cycles. The early speeches, the choice and unveiling of Tim Walz, the near-flawless convention—Harris was firing on all cylinders.

Back then, practically everything about her was new to most people. But that was bound to end. Now we’re through that discovery phase. And she’s not dominating news cycles the way she was six weeks ago.

So, Last writes, the campaign needs to find ways to drive the news. It’s especially important when running against Trump, because he drives news nearly every day. Most of it is madness. But the media machine, as we have learned and relearned, has little capacity to punish madness. It rewards performance. This is what Trump has known for 40 years.

The Harris campaign seemed to know this at first, but it has lost a little momentum in these recent weeks as she’s settled more into normalcy—and, I’d say, defense. The economic speech and the border appearance are essentially defense: They’re defending or inoculating her against possible Trump attacks. As I said, they’re justifiable as politics. But they’re not offense.

So it’s time to play offense. This is where the art of campaigning comes in, and subconsciously taking advantage of her greatest strengths over Trump:

1.     She’s not mentally unfit to be the president of the United States.
2.     She’s not pushing 80.
3.     People seem to like her. They even seem to like, or at least not dislike, her once-infamous laugh.
4.     She proved in the debate that she is smarter than he is, sharper on her feet, his mental and intellectual superior in every way.
5.     She knows how to get under his skin while keeping her cool.

What do these factors add up to? The idea that the Harris campaign should be tossing grenades at Trump that mock and expose him and that make news. Force him to respond. Make him explain. As an analogy, think of a tennis match: One player is sitting calmly at the center of the base line firing ground strokes left and right, while the other is running side to side, panting, covering 25 feet between each shot. It’s pretty obvious who’s going to win most of the points, and the match.

Here’s an example. Just yesterday, Trump spoke on Mark Robinson for the first time since the latter’s insane past comments (“I’m a Black NAZI!”) became public. He was making remarks at Trump Tower. As he finished and walked toward a bank of elevators, a reporter asked him if he was “going to pull” his Robinson endorsement. Trump, who once called Robinson “Martin Luther King on steroids,” paused and said: “Uh, I don’t know the situation.”

Obviously, he knows the situation. The Harris campaign should be out with an ad today mocking this, tying it to other similar remarks of his, like when he pretended he didn’t know who David Duke was. But more: Harris herself should talk to reporters mocking Trump’s lame denial. It needs to be Harris herself, not Walz or Doug Emhoff.

There are tons of opportunities. Trump’s liquid rhetoric is such that he constantly contradicts himself and often just makes no sense. It makes me crazy that Harris is being knocked for not having “positions.” Do those critics seriously think that what Trump is saying constitutes “positions”? Remember that answer of his a few weeks ago when the woman asked him about childcare? It was embarrassing to listen to. He does that all the time. Make sure voters know it. Attack. In a mocking way. Make news. Play offense.

People like me aren’t supposed to say things like this, but here it is: A lot of these swing voters, they’re not voting on issues. The economy, maybe. But generally, they vote on vibes. Who has the look of a winner? Who looks fresh and ready to tackle this big job, and who looks tired? Who appears to be having fun?

That was the Harris of July and August. She had some magic. It’s hardly panic time. A raft of swing state polls came out Thursday night, and she leads in every state except Georgia, where it’s tied. She’s ahead, and he’s weak and worried and knows he might lose (and then face sentencing). He’s crumbling, psychologically. Now is the time to step on the gas.

This article first appeared in Fighting Words, a weekly TNR newsletter authored by editor Michael Tomasky. Sign up here.

It was billed as an antisemitism event, and, well, I guess it was, ultimately, although not in the intended sense. The phrase “antisemitism event” usually refers to an event designed to draw attention to and denounce antisemitism. But in Donald Trump’s hands, it morphed into an event that featured antisemitism, in the form of the mind-blowing comments by the principal.

After opining that the Democratic Party has “a hold, or curse” on Jewish Americans, he then said: “I’m not going to call this as a prediction, but in my opinion, the Jewish people would have a lot to do with a loss if I’m at 40 percent.… If I’m at 40, think of it, that means 60 percent are voting for Kamala [Harris], who, in particular, is a bad Democrat. The Democrats are bad to Israel, very bad.”

First of all, as always, he’s lying. He’s not at 40 percent. He’s at 25 percent. But lies are par for the course. What isn’t par for the course is to show up to a constituency and serially berate them. He said again that American Jews who vote for Kamala Harris “should have their head examined.” He took it as a given that Jews have a dual loyalty to the United States and to Israel—the oldest antisemitic trope in American politics. And he whined that “I haven’t been treated right” by American Jews.

But don’t worry—it wasn’t all about attacking Jews. He attacked Muslims too! He boasted that if elected, he’ll bring back the Muslim travel ban to keep out people from “infested” countries. That is plainly fascist language.

After the debate, I wrote a column arguing that this was the beginning of Trump’s unraveling. I’ve gotten my share of predictions wrong over the years, and we still have 46 days to go, but so far, that one is looking pretty good. In the last few days, Trump:

• has continued to spew the lies about Haitians and house pets in Springfield, Ohio (and, of course, a poll found that 52 percent of Trump supporters think the lie is “definitely” or “probably” true);
• in a press conference in Los Angeles, rambled about that “very large faucet” in Canada that could solve all of California’s water problems. (What was he doing campaigning in California anyway? Oh, of course: He was at one of his golf courses.) This is not entirely made up—he was apparently referring to the Columbia River, but as this Canadian scientist explains, needless to say, there is no faucet and it isn’t that simple;
• said in an interview that the audience at the debate “went crazy” for him. Uh, there was no audience;
• in one of his more bizarre rants ever, said he was “greater even than Elvis.” Trump: “Nobody can draw crowds like me.… I’m the greatest of all time. Maybe greater even than Elvis. Elvis had a guitar, I don’t have a guitar. I don’t have the privilege of a guitar.”

First of all, asshole, a guitar isn’t a “privilege.” It’s something you earn by learning how to play it, like I have. But learning a musical instrument requires having an attention span of more than five seconds, so that’s out of the question for Trump. He couldn’t learn the kazoo.

Second, his reference point shows his age, does it not? How far removed is Trump’s invocation of someone who was at his peak of popularity nearly 70 years ago and died nearly 50 years ago from Bob Dole’s famous reference to the Brooklyn Dodgers during the 1996 campaign? I mean, that was only 40 years after the Boys of Summer fled to L.A. And third, if you know anything about Elvis’s career and what rock and roll tours were like in those primitive days, you know that he was typically playing crowds of three or four thousand, often less—fairgrounds and high-school auditoriums. Even the ’70s-Vegas Elvis played mostly the Westgate Casino Cabaret, capacity 1,700. The large-scale rock and roll tour started with The Beatles and then grew from there. But Elvis remains the lodestar of the 80-year-old Queens brain.

Oh, and by the way: Trump said this at a rally where—of course—there were lots of empty seats and where, yes, people were spotted leaving early.

So we have two issues we need to examine here. First, the astonishingly offensive remarks Trump made Thursday night about Jews. His Jewish support should start sinking like a stone. But there’s one Jew who clearly loves him, and other events this week have to make us wonder whether Bibi Netanyahu is trying to start a war with Lebanon and maybe Iran to raise gas prices and screw up the economy (right after Jerome Powell made a move to ensure that doesn’t happen) to help Trump win, but that’s another column, if I get around to it.

The second issue is one that must remain front and center in the American political media: Trump is really losing his marbles now. Was that statement about the crowd going nuts for him at the debate a normal Trump lie? Or was it a fantasy of which he has convinced himself? If we hooked him up to a polygraph and he repeated that line, would his pulse quicken? Would he change his speech patterns, avert his eyes, cover his mouth? I doubt it. He wouldn’t even think he was lying.

The mainstream media still treats comments like this with diffidence: “Oh, that’s Trump.” No. These are defining comments. They tell us about his mental fitness. They matter. They should be covered. I can’t find evidence that The New York Times or The Washington Post covered those remarks.

This sanewashing must stop. Voters need to be informed when Trump makes statements with a tenuous connection to reality at best. He’s disqualifying himself from the presidency every day that he opens his mouth, but much of the mainstream media is ignoring the words coming out.

I know some people don’t like to play the “Imagine If!” game, but at times it’s hard not to wonder, “Imagine if Joe Biden had said the crazy thing that Donald Trump uttered.” So I’m sorry to say that there is a story from this week that demands we indulge ourselves. Imagine with me that Kamala Harris had attended—oh, let’s say a Holocaust commemoration ceremony—and she brought, as a member of her entourage, someone known for saying the Holocaust was a hoax. Or that she attended a ceremony marking the anniversary of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in the company of someone who’d argued, pace Alex Jones, that the shootings were faked.

That’s what Donald Trump just did by bringing Laura Loomer to Wednesday’s September 11 commemoration.

It’s just a surreal moment. I lived in New York when the attacks happened. I keenly remember how zealous Republicans and conservatives were about 9/11, how quick they were to pounce on anyone on the left side of the spectrum who said anything that even hinted at departure from the accepted narrative—and especially those who, along the way, departed from reality. And now, years down the line, the Republican Party standard-bearer comes to New York on 9/11 itself, palling around with someone who called those attacks an “inside job.”

You’ve seen that reference many times now in the last couple of days, but it’s worth unpacking the phrase in a paragraph. “Inside job,” with respect to 9/11, meant that the U.S. government had advance knowledge of the attacks and let them happen. Or even staged them. In some variants, Israel, naturally, was involved as well. I believe a lot of bad stuff about George W. Bush and Dick Cheney (still!), but I have never believed that. It’s loony tunes. But adherence to this zany theory was disturbingly widespread, at first on the far left before it spread to and was taken up by some on the far right. In polls at the time, up to a quarter of respondents, sometimes more, said they believed this silliness.

By the way, when I say that Loomer believes lunatic nonsense about the September 11 attacks, I’m not dredging up statements she made 20 years ago to criticize her today. HuffPost reported this week that just last year, Loomer “shared a video on X that said ‘9/11 was an Inside Job!’ and claimed it was somehow related to then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s announcing $2.3 trillion in ‘lost’ government funds on Sept. 10, 2001.”

Loomer’s sins hardly end there, of course. She’s a racist and a xenophobe and a provocateur. She’s claimed that school shootings were staged and that the Las Vegas mass shooter was affiliated with ISIS. Remember that murder of the 6-year-old Palestinian boy outside Chicago, who was stabbed 26 times by his white landlord shortly after Hamas’s October 7 attacks? The landlord said he feared a “global day of jihad,” a lie spread by Loomer and Jack Posobiec (of Pizzagate infamy) as well as Jones’s InfoWars website, among others. There’s a lot more. She’s poison.

The fact that Trump took Loomer to the 9/11 event has gotten a lot of coverage. I woke up Friday morning ready to unload on The New York Times for not doing a story on this, but then I looked at the website, and to its credit, the Times has a good piece up today that highlights Trump bringing her to New York and traveling with her more generally. In case you missed it, she was at the debate Tuesday night in Philadelphia. She’s a frequent Mar-a-Lago presence. He wanted to give her a campaign job back in the spring, until others objected. Loomer is apparently too crazy for Marjorie Taylor Greene. I didn’t know “too crazy for Marjorie Taylor Greene” was possible.

What does all this tell us about a possible future Trump presidency? That this racist conspiracy theorist will be around the White House whispering in the president’s ear. And she won’t be alone. Trump’s “social media war room” at the debate included Loomer, Posobiec, and Chaya Raichik, who created the “Libs of TikTok” account that promotes hate speech and transphobia. Children’s hospitals across the country have received bomb threats after social media posts on Libs of TikTok—accusing the hospitals of performing gender-affirming surgeries that in some cases they didn’t even perform—went viral in the right-wing fever swamp.

Imagine the White House filled with people like this. That’s what we’re probably talking about if Trump is elected.

Call it speculative if you want. This is part of why it’s difficult for news outlets that follow traditional reporting norms to fathom these possibilities, let alone make a news story out of them. But the fact that these people are hanging around at Trump’s invitation can’t be allowed to pass without our reckoning with it. On whatever path forward Trump hopes to forge, these people will be along for the ride. And the mere possibility that the White House is going to be bursting with racists and xenophobes and transphobes and multipurpose haters and conspiracy theorists is something to which attention must be paid. There has to be a way, within the conventions of mainstream reporting, to place this alarming possibility in front of the electorate’s collective nose.

Let’s conclude by returning to the “Imagine If” game. What would the mainstream media be doing right now if, on Wednesday, Harris had indulged in one of my above scenarios? First of all, it’s absolutely impossible to imagine, because Kamala Harris is a good human being who has normal human morals. But if she had, everyone—and I do mean everyone: the right wing, of course, but the New York Times editorial page, the talking heads of MSNBC, and even yours truly—would be in a state of meltdown apoplexy until she apologized and explained herself; and even after she did so, loads of people, right and left, Republicans and Democrats, would be declaiming on her unfitness for office and demanding that she stand down as the nominee.

But in the real world? This story, like all Trump stories, is likely to fade. That would be to the detriment of all. At the very least, the mainstream media should not let this outrage die; it should continue to rub this ugliness in the faces of the hypocrites who once called liberals enemies of freedom because we opposed the stupid and tragic War in Iraq that Bush and Cheney used 9/11 as an excuse to start, and who now want this amoral nitwit to be the leader of the free world.

For months, Donald Trump’s frequent lapses into incoherence—the half-sentences that suddenly veer off toward a distant galaxy, the asides that limn the virtues of Hannibal Lecter—have been mostly fodder for late-night TV hosts. Morning Joe has covered them consistently, but for the most part, the mainstream press has ignored them, either cleaning up Trump’s actual words so they made more sense on the printed or pixelated page or just not printing them at all.

This was easier to do when Trump was running against Joe Biden, who sometimes also lost the rhetorical thread, and whose age was a constant news story (not without justification). But now that Trump is running against a younger and more energetic opponent who tends to speak in full, logical sentences and who doesn’t go on rants about bacon and wind power, his mental state is rightly becoming more of a story. As my colleague Greg Sargent put it yesterday: “Trump’s mental fitness for the presidency deserves sustained journalistic scrutiny as a stand-alone topic with its own intrinsic importance and newsworthiness.”

Which brings us to Trump’s appearance Thursday before the Economic Club of New York. I watched some of it. In fairness, reading from his prepared remarks, he was coherent. He rattled off a string of statistics about the economy under his presidency, many of which were actually true, or close enough; when he got around to describing the horrors “Marxist” Kamala Harris had visited upon America, his claims were a lot less true. (He said “crime is rampant, and fleeing is the number one occupation” in California, but crime is trending down in the state this year, and the recent population declines have been turned around too—not that Harris has control over these issues one way or another.)

Then came the question-and-answer period. A woman among the handful assembled on stage asked Trump if he would commit to passing childcare legislation, and if so what his specific proposal would be. Here’s the answer in part, as put out in a tweet by the Harris campaign:

“Well, I would do that, and we’re sitting down, you know; I was, somebody, we had Senator Marco Rubio and my daughter, Ivanka, who was so impactful on that issue.… But I think when you talk about the kind of numbers that I’m talking about that because the childcare is childcare, couldn’t, you know, there’s something you have to have it, in this country you have to have it.”

Trump’s answer was longer than that, but when he got around to something resembling a response, it was that his tariffs on China are going to pay for everything, no problem. Just like deporting people is going to solve the housing crisis.

A few quick facts. In the nineteenth century, before the individual income tax became a permanent fixture of life, tariffs accounted for most of the government’s revenue (at a time when the government did very little—stood up an army, ran a postal service, etc.). But today, according to the Council of Economic Advisers, import duties bring in only around 2 percent of the federal government’s total revenues. If you want to lower taxes on corporations and the rich, as Trump does, tariffs would need to be substantially jacked up to make up for the lost revenue (although of course in the Candyland in which Republicans and their economists live, reducing tax rates does not reduce revenue, which is probably the single biggest and most insidious policy lie of the last 50 years). And of course, as the CEA and many others argue, much higher import levies are “likely to spark retaliatory tariffs that reduce U.S. exports and subsequently induce transfers of collected duties to impacted U.S. businesses.”

Now let’s get to the point here: the media. Specifically, The New York Times.

I looked Friday morning at the way the Times and The Washington Post covered the speech. The Post’s article, to my astonishment, was mostly about the childcare word salad. “Trump offers confusing plan to pay for U.S. child care with foreign tariffs,” ran the Post’s headline.

The Times’s story was by no means favorable. Under the headline “Trump Praises Tariffs, and William McKinley, to Power Brokers,” the article adopted a gently skeptical tone toward Trump’s promise that tariffs would solve everything. It even mentioned the words “child care,” once.

But the article didn’t bother to quote him on the topic. Why? It could be that the reporter didn’t think it was newsworthy (or perhaps it was an editor, since the Times’ election news blog did partially quote Trump). But this is exactly the point Sargent and others are trying to make: that Trump’s frequent incoherence is in and of itself news. It should be reported on. He should be quoted verbatim, not in a partial way that sanitizes his words and cleans them up.

Why? Because his mental fitness at age 78 to be president for the next four years is a legitimate issue. I’ve covered, and simply watched as an interested citizen, a lot of presidential candidates. Dozens, maybe hundreds, if you count Democrats and Republicans who ran in primaries. I’ve watched hours of debates and attended events like the once-famous Iowa Straw Poll in 1999, at which 11 Republican candidates spoke. I’ve never heard a candidate who talks in such a dissociative, rambling, confused way; never heard a candidate so obviously bluffing his way through certain policy questions.

The conventions of objective journalism are such that reporters tend to use “good” quotes. Reporters favor politicians’ pithiest and most succinct quotes, because reporters themselves are trying to be pithy and succinct, and ergo logorrheic and nonsensical just doesn’t fit the plan. I’ve been there, I’ve done that. Guilty.

But here’s what’s different. Until Trump, using the pithiest and most succinct quote never amounted to a quasi-conspiracy against reality. Now it does. Maybe the voters will decide that Trump’s incoherence doesn’t matter. But they at least need to be presented with the evidence to decide for themselves.