Yes, we all know this and we have to take this account when we evaluate the performances. Trump being a lunatic is not in itself a weakness on his part, it’s his brand. It’s what he sells. But I agree that when it came to her demeanour and authority (tough without being condescending etc.), she did very well.
On the economy, I wish she would have been more direct in answering the first question of the night (as well as several other questions), which was if she thought the economy was better or worse off after four years of Biden presidency. It was an easy opportunity to acknowledge the nuances and complexities while also educating the undecideds in some basic economics lessons about the root causes of inflation (thereby taking the sting out of Trump’s subsequent attacks). I believe many of the lies and misleading things Trump is spouting will go unnoticed unless you carefully and soberly explain why they are wrong.
On the last part: Do you think this was a death knell for Trump comparable to the Biden disaster? I wish it was but to me that is exactly that, wishful thinking.
No, it won't make party insiders insist Trump step down, a la Biden. Biden's feck up was far more consequential. But the narrative shifted last night. No one who watched that can pretend Trump was anything other than a hateful, ignorant, rambling, bigoted, angry old man. The contrast between him and Harris was night and day.
I don't understand why everyone doesn't just stop everytime Trump says democrats want post 9 month abortions and ask him, SO THEY WANT TO MURDER LIVING BABIES?! And just refuse to continue any form of conversation until he explains this.
Because it was a trap of sorts. Trump and the forced-birthers want the conversation to be about when life starts (conception or birth). If Harris responded to that, as you suggested, Trump would have some response along the lines of "it's the same thing, murdering a baby is murdering a baby, just a couple weeks earlier". Harris did well to ignore the inflammatory nonsense and stick to her own attack plan, which worked beautifully.
Are popstar endorsements a big thing in American politics or is Tay just a different breed of pop culture megalodon now?
Halting a VP candidate to tell him that Taylor Swift is backing him and Harris and social media acting like she is the silver bullet for Trump is a bit bizarre.
Pop star endorsements largely don't matter except for one brief news cycle. Taylor Swift, however, is the most beloved person on the entire planet. Her fans are online and motivated. Swift has been in the public eye for more than half her life, and her fans have aged along with her, many are now bringing their own daughters to her shows. The kids who turn 18 today and 17 years more of them, equal Taylor's age of 35. She has put a link to register to vote, and she has been unequivocal in who she supports (without hammering the point). So Swift's endorsement could theoretically inspire a wave of young voters who skew Democratic, and in battleground states, it will only take a few thousand new voters to win.
In a cultural sense, Trump was stoked when there was an AI-generated image of "Swifties for Trump", and he's apparently obsessed with her. This was a kick in the balls for him. The most popular person on the planet just gave a roaring endorsement of his opponent. In the words of Bruce Campbell,, "THAT'S GOTTA HURT!"