andled it by doing it first. Now if he had prepared to do it first—you know if she ever interrupted me he would do it first you know give her that line and then joke about it—that would be good preparing. That would have been smart. If he wasn’t prepared for it and he did it spontaneously it was even smarter. So that was just a good play whether he was expecting it or not.

And then she had a good line saying that Trump was fired by 81 million people. I mean that’s a good one for her base. Yeah you’re the guy who fires people. Well you got fired by 81 million people. It’s a pretty good line. Politically it kind of sticks in your mind a little bit. Probably will get used again.

She did bait Trump and oh my god when I saw it happening I said don’t go in there Trump. When she said that Trump’s rally crowds were bored and would leave early. As soon as she said that I said don’t take the bait don’t don’t. And he took the bait and I could feel my heart just sink because it put her in charge. She was basically directing the terms of the conversation and he was letting her because he can’t handle the—apparently he just can’t handle that kind of specific attack on his ego I guess. So that was really the baiting of the lesser important things to get him to defend them. That was just brilliant. That was brilliant and worked.

She didn’t cackle very much so her anti-cackle efforts have been successful. I would say of Trump—remember you know he said it was his best debate ever and I’m actually agreeing even while I’m criticizing him because I think her debate—I hate to say it but it’s one of the best you’re ever going to see because she was so well prepared. And I think this has more to do with her advisers than it does with her honestly. I don’t think it—give her all the credit. You have to say her advisers were just right on point. I don’t think on her own she would have come up with that rally crowd thing but somebody who really knows the psychology of things that you know if you stick that in there you’re going to take him right off his game. She did and it did in my opinion.

So here’s how I put it. If I put it in basketball terms I would say that Trump made every two-point jump shot. So if he had an open jump shot he made it cleanly. So he did everything that’s sort of the basics. You know you want to hit all your points etc. He missed all of his layups. So like debunking the fine people hoax and ending the entire campaign—that was a layup. It wasn’t hard to end the entire campaign. You just had to do it. He didn’t do it. So he missed several layups. And I don’t even think he attempted a three-point shot. So he didn’t get any kill shots like you know only Rosie O’Donnell. I mean the only Rosie O’Donnell remark was you know for the ages. You didn’t have any one of those. So nothing special but also nothing that’s a big mistake. You know falling for these little baiting things. You didn’t spend a lot of time on it so it wasn’t the biggest mistake in the world but yeah nothing special.

Let’s see what else. I would say that the viewing public is not influenced by how many lies either of them told or how many hoaxes. That’s why Kamala can just throw in the hoaxes one after another. I don’t think anybody cares that anybody avoided a question.

And here’s a take that I thought was kind of brilliant. I saw a few people have this opinion that it might only matter what the Pennsylvanians thought about it and Pennsylvania cares about fracking. So if Trump made a dent in the Pennsylvania vote just by the fracking conversation and nothing else he won the election. She may have won the debate but if he did only that one thing—made Pennsylvania a little bit, just a little bit more pro-Trump—that’s the whole game. So we do have this weird situation where I think she won the debate, he may have won the election. Which would be fascinating. And that would be compounded on top of her not picking Shapiro as her vice president. So you can almost see the after-story forming. If Trump wins it’s going to be the fracking and it’s going to be not picking Shapiro as her VP. So we’ll see.

The most annoying thing that she did is possibly my fault. I have to take some responsibility for this. I don’t know for sure so I might be aggressively connecting dots that shouldn’t be connected. Have I told you the story about helping Al Gore and Bill Clinton during their campaign against Bob Dole in which I did give some advice to the campaign? And my advice was that Bob Dole kept saying he was going to take the country back to the greatest generation you know better ethical moral patriotic spiritual ways. And I said just say he’s taking you to the past and you’re taking them to the future and that’s the end of the race. And so they did and that was the end of the race. If you remember Clinton’s slogan turned into we’re a bridge to the future and he’s a bridge to the past. As soon as you can successfully frame your opponent as taking you to the past nobody cares how good the past was. It’s the past. There’s just nobody interested in the past. They’re interested in what are you going to do tomorrow. But if you can get away with that framing that is really really powerful.

And so it makes me wonder if any of the people advising Harris remember that from the Clinton days. Because if they did that was my fault. So I might have had some indirect role in that. They wouldn’t know it by the way. They wouldn’t be aware that I had any role in it. They might have just seen the VP and the President Clinton say it and say that sounds good. They would not necessarily know that came from me.

All right. The Harris campaign very cleverly—again freaking brilliant—said right after the campaign that they won it and they’re looking forward to having another debate. Now Trump tried to frame that as well why would they need another debate if they won this one but they’re framing it as we beat you so badly we’d love to do it again. So I don’t know if they’ll do it again. I don’t think it’s a good idea. I think if Trump took a second bite the odds of him correcting his you know the holes that he had in the first one were pretty high because his holes are really obvious. You know he just didn’t go well against the hoax. He could practice that and nail it next time. I think that the Harris campaign will just find a reason to say no. So Trump will say hey let’s do it on Fox News. They’ll say no we don’t like Fox News and then that’ll be it. But they’ll be able to say they wanted a debate and then still not have one. So they win twice. Once by saying they want it and another time by not having it.

Every time I see Harris’s campaign work it’s always good. I hate to say it. I really really hate it but they’re very smart and they consistently—if it were one thing I’d be like well they got lucky you know blind squirrel finds nut. But it’s kind of every day now. And when you look at the fact that they hid her from the public for so long and then when she finally comes out and everybody’s expecting the worst she does her best performance that borders on genius campaign work. Maybe it’s just genius. It’s brilliant. It’s evil. It’s unethical. It’s immoral. But it’s brilliant.

All right. I think this happens every debate. Every debate there’s a rumor that the Democrat was wearing an earpiece. So there’s some allegations that her—Harris’s earrings were a special kind of earring that does exist apparently that doubles as a like an earpl