Meet the Man Who Plays Trump for Kamala Harris’s Debate Practice

In a unique approach to debate preparation, Kamala Harris has enlisted the help of Philippe Reines, who is stepping into the role of Donald Trump as she readies for their upcoming encounter. Reines is no stranger to this task; he previously took on the same role during Hillary Clinton’s 2016 debate prep, describing Trump as a “malevolent George Costanza” and a “malfunctioning appliance.”

Harris and Reines are gearing up for a pivotal debate that will take place on September 10. Reines is taking the job seriously, even choosing not to don the typical Trump costume of an orange face or a wig. “One day I put self-tanner on one half of my face and no one noticed, so I didn’t bother again,” he joked while discussing his approach on The Michael Smerconish Program.

Reines has a long history of working with Clinton, having spent 17 years as her advisor, which also included supporting her during her tenure as secretary of state and her subsequent presidential campaigns. Clinton referred to him in her memoir, Hard Choices, as “passionate, loyal, and shrewd,” adding that he was someone she could always count on to express his thoughts clearly.

His most notable project might have been helping Clinton prepare for her first debate against Trump in 2016. He joined a team of advisors and strategists about three weeks before the debate, setting up a replica of the debate stage in a Westchester hotel ballroom. There, they engaged in mock debates, running through various scenarios and discussions regarding Clinton’s policy positions.

“I didn’t stand there all the time yelling ‘crooked Hillary!’ or ‘email email email!’ That’s not helpful,”

Reines shared, emphasizing that effective debate practice requires bringing out Trump’s persona while also considering the opponent’s strengths.

To prepare for his portrayal of Trump, Reines meticulously analyzed past debate performances, including those from the Republican primary debates. He even observed them with the sound off, aiming to capture Trump’s body language and mannerisms. Their mock debates were intense, lasting approximately 90 minutes each with advisors being encouraged to remain in character throughout.

Reines described this preparation as akin to “batting practice.” He highlighted the challenge of debating Trump, given the former president’s tendency to stray into untruths and distractions. He believes that a candidate must strike a balance between calling out Trump’s inaccuracies and adhering to their central message without being sidetracked.

Clinton echoed these sentiments in her reflections post-debate, noting that attempting to counter every claim made by Trump is often futile. In a piece for the New York Times, she remarked, “It is a waste of time to try to refute Mr. Trump’s arguments like in a normal debate.”

Reines insists that to effectively debate Trump, participants need to adopt a more direct communication style and challenge him aggressively. He previously articulated that Democrats should leave behind traditional decorum and engage more bluntly in political discourse. He believes that refraining from quick, decisive responses can be a significant disadvantage.

As for Harris, she has also demonstrated boldness in her engagement, often pushing back against her opponents’ interruptions. Her experience as a former prosecutor could give her an advantage on the debate stage, allowing her to confront challenges with confidence. Harris has openly declared her readiness to tackle Trump, stating, “So hear me when I say, I know Donald Trump’s type.”

Despite these advantages, both Harris and Clinton face similar challenges. Clinton entered her debates with high expectations, and that pressure might also weigh on Harris as she prepares to face Trump. The necessity for a decisive performance is essential; polls have shown that such debates can significantly influence public perception.

In terms of preparation, Harris has the advantage of analysis, with more footage of Trump’s previous debates to inform her strategies. This historical context could allow her to exploit weaknesses effectively.

As she approaches this significant debate, Harris aims to leverage her law experience against Trump, presenting herself as someone who can confront a variety of challenging adversaries, whether they are fraudsters or abusers. Given her performance in previous encounters, it appears she is primed to approach this debate with both strategy and aggression.

Overall, Harris’s preparation alongside Reines signals her awareness of the stakes involved in facing Trump, drawing from the lessons learned from Clinton’s past experiences.

Source: source names