In Trump Foreign Policy Interview, It’s a Blowout: David 23, Maggie 3

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


On Friday, Donald Trump talked foreign policy for nearly two hours with David Sanger and Maggie Haberman of the New York Times. There’s not much point in reading it. It’s just Trump’s usual incoherent babble in expanded form. The only thing it demonstrates is that he can pretty much talk forever no matter how little he knows about something.

But here’s an interesting little factlet. Trump addressed the reporters individually by name 26 times during the interview. Here’s the scorecard: Sanger 23, Haberman 3. And one of Haberman’s three was this:

And — I’d love to ask David, Maggie, if he’s a little surprised at how well I’ve done. You know, we’ve knocked out a lot. We’re down to the leftovers now, from the way I look at it. I call them the leftovers.

In this case, Haberman asks Trump a question, and Trump responds first by addressing Sanger, and then telling Haberman that he really wants to ask if Sanger is surprised at how brilliant his foreign policy knowledge is. The transcript notes that this was met by laughter, and I can only imagine just what kind of laughter it was.

Anyway, take this for what it’s worth. Trump spent the entire interview practically slobbering over Sanger. Haberman might as well have been nonexistent for all the attention she got and the number of times Trump interrupted her to turn his attention back to Sanger. You may draw your own conclusions.

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate