Man who played Trump during 2016 mock debates says the key is to 'get out of his way'

Transcript

During Hillary Clinton's mock debates in 2016, Philippe Reines had the unique opportunity of playing then-Republican nominee Donald Trump, whose debating style Reines describes as "one long non sequitur."

Four years later, the Republican candidate remains the same. But his opponent has changed. And so have the circumstances. Back then, Trump was the underdog going against an establishment candidate. Now he's the president with everything to lose.

Reines, who wrote about his experience playing Trump for the Washington Post, spoke with As It Happens guest host Helen Mann ahead of Tuesday's presidential debate. Here is part of their conversation.

If you were standing in for the president for debate prep this time around, how would you play him?

I would play him differently than I did in 2016, because while he's fundamentally not a different person, he's in different circumstances.

And it's manifested itself in a couple of ways. Most notably, whereas in 2016, he defended himself minimally, if ever, even against the most egregious revelations or accusations ... [now] he can't say a word, he can't have a microphone near him, without going through a list of grievances that he feels compelled to address.

This is not a press conference where he can talk as long as he wants. He's going to have a couple of minutes and he's going to have a moderator who says, "Thank you, sir." And if he wants to spend half his time talking about how perfect his call was with the Ukrainian president or how slippery the ramp was, that's his decision. But that's not that's not helpful.

The other thing I would do, and it's related, is that I would really just take a jackhammer to the English language, because while he always digressed, he's become just one long non sequitur.

How does Joe Biden deal with the unique challenges of debating an opponent who has these kind of non-sequiturs and just tries to move the conversation to his comfort zone?

His team is reminding him that you can do one of two things. You can stand there and quarrel with Donald Trump for 90 minutes, or you can talk to the largest audience you're going to have for this campaign. And it's not that binary. There are times you're going to have to get into it with him, and that's not bad. But you don't want to always be fighting with him.

Donald Trump sees these moments as spectacles. And contrary to four years ago, he does not have a coherent, compelling message. He can't articulate it when he's asked.

If I were Joe Biden, I would say, "Chris, thank you for moderating and thank you Case Western for hosting us. And with that, I'm going to yield my 45 minutes to Donald Trump."

He would let him dig his own grave.

Just get out of his way. By his own admission, as you know, as recently as this weekend, he's at rallies and he's testing out new attack lines.

The fact [that the election is] 35 days away and he does not have a well-honed message or a well-honed attack on Biden, it's not going to do him any better tomorrow night than it does on any given afternoon. 

One of the big stories today is the president's tax returns — the revelation that he paid little or no taxes most years and, indeed, owes a great deal of money. How much do you think that will impact the debate?

In 2016, when I pretended to be him in mock debates against Hillary, the easiest defence I ever had to make and simulate was the tax accusation. He's got it down.

It honestly is tapping him under the knee and the reflexive action. And here's how I imagine it. They don't have opening statements tomorrow. And by flip of a coin, Trump gets the first question. Short of anything overwhelming happening in the next 24 hours, Chris Wallace, the moderator, will say, "Mr. Trump, there's been these reports. What say you?" And Trump will instinctively give his basic answer, which is, "It's not true. It's fake." And Chris Wallace won't fall for that.

The economy in the United States right now is very different. A lot of people are struggling quite desperately. And right now, you know, the president saying last time he was smart to avoid taxes. Is that the same now?

There's two elements to it. There's the debate, how it manifests itself in the debate dynamic, and then there's how I think it will play out.

It's terrible because exactly as you say, the situation is different and 750. You've got people who their unemployment benefits ran out or, you know, they know that the relief bill is being held hostage. It's absolutely devastating. And I think that'll haunt him in all sorts of ways outside of the 90 minutes tomorrow night.

A lot of people felt that Hillary Clinton won the debates in 2016. But Donald Trump still won the Electoral College. How much of a difference do you think the debates will make in motivating people to get out and vote in the states that matter?

I would put it this way — her lead opened up dramatically after the first debate. And that gap kept widening and she never led him more than after the third debate. Unfortunately, we don't vote the morning after debates. If we did, she'd be the sitting president right now.

The debates were not the problem. The debates are an opportunity. There's something about them standing there. You're choosing between two people. And that redounded to Hillary's benefit. And it will do so to Biden's benefit.

And Democrats, including myself, until a year ago were so chagrined because we got 2016 wrong, so paralyzed. Analysis by paralysis where you can't get past that. You're afraid to say the obvious.

This has been a debacle. This has been a failed experiment. Our country has lots of problems, but we're not 325 million idiots.

Written by Tahiat Mahboob. Interview produced by Katie Swoger. Q&A has been edited for length and clarity