No dogs or cats were harmed in the making of this post-debate podcast

Leah Feiger: Right. Obviously, I think the thing that caught our attention the most, at least in the WIRED Politics Slack room, which we were watching in disbelief, was the conspiracy and the lie that Haitian immigrants were crossing the border into the United States illegally and camping there and stealing and eating people’s dogs, cats and pets.

Donald Trump [Archival audio], They are eating dogs. People who have come here are eating cats, they are eating the pets of the people who live there.

Leah Feiger: That’s not happening. That’s not happening by any means, but it was an issue that’s been a topic of discussion for the last 36 hours. J.D. Vance is adding fuel to the fire. He’s tweeting about it. Congress. It’s all over. Trump got involved in the debate. It was very weird, guys. It was very weird. It felt like a fever dream.

Makena Kelly: The difference between how it played out online before the debate and how it was received when Trump actually said it was huge. Because when you look online, when people were discussing this whole conspiracy about cats and eating them and et cetera, all of it, for the most part, it was just like a joke. It seemed like it was mostly silly among a lot of the creators that were posting about it. Then on the debate stage with Trump taking it so seriously and literally, I think that change in attitude made everything seem like, what is he doing?

Tim Marchman: Yeah, I have a conspiracy theory about this, which is that Trump was briefed to give hints about it, but stay away from it. Because very early on in his first statement, he very clearly mentioned Springfield, Ohio, where the conspiracy theory says this is happening. He seemed very smug and self-satisfied in saying that. My base, the people who are on the truth social —

Leah Feiger: They will know.

Tim Marchman: … He knows what’s happening in Springfield. But he didn’t say anything. Then he really started talking about it when Harris provoked him by telling him that people left his rallies early, that they were endless and boring and repetitive. He started to get very angry obviously and he suddenly said, he was talking about the horrors of the economy and the horrors of post-apocalyptic America, and he said, “In Springfield,” he couldn’t bring himself to say it. He said in Springfield, and then he just said, “They’re eating cats. They’re eating dogs.” It’s very hilarious and funny. Then what he did after that was he almost politely said, “People on television said their dog got taken for a meal.” Just the almost childish tone of it. It was a really incredible moment. I really got the impression that he knew he shouldn’t be talking about this, I think.

Leah Feiger: I think you’re right. To me, it wasn’t really childish. It was like a grandparent or an elderly relative saying, Grandma turn off Fox News. It’s not true. It’s not right. He felt very old in that moment. He was babbling, he had uncertainty. I guess my question here is, with all these conspiracy theories he brought up again, like he did in the debate with Biden in June, that Democrats support abortion after nine months, that is obviously not true. Honestly, there were so many, it’s hard to even list. My question is, does it matter? The internet went wild, the liberal internet was thrilled. The pundits on CNN and MSNBC were like, “That was so weird. Harris beat him, et cetera, et cetera.” I don’t know. This race isn’t really about who’s more eloquent or who can tell the truth better or more, and at this point that feels a little naïve. It’s really about who can mobilize their base. The question is whether Trump successfully mobilized his base tonight with his long list of conspiracies. Was he convincing?