The Penta Podcast Channel
The Penta Podcast Channel
Now they got Bad Blood: Harris and Trump's battle for the presidency
In this episode of What's At Stake, hosts Bryan DeAngelis and Ylan Mui analyze the first – and maybe only – presidential debate between former President Trump and Vice President Harris with Alex Sternhell, Principal at Sternhell Group and Democratic strategist. They discuss the heated exchanges on immigration as well as the candidates' stances on tariffs, taxes, and corporate America. The election could hinge on whether the candidates' debate performance sways voters in crucial swing states.
Tune in for a breakdown of what’s at stake in the final weeks before Election Day (with a bonus track on Taylor Swift!). Tune in
Welcome to this week's episode of what's at Stake. We're your hosts. Brian DeAnduis, partner here at Penta.
Speaker 2:And I'm Ilan Mui, Managing Director at Penta.
Speaker 1:And we're joined by our good friend, alex Sternhill. Alex, I have your bio here principal at Sternhill Group but I know you as probably the most famous Dodd alumni in Washington DC and have had the pleasure of knowing you for years, so thank you for coming back on the show.
Speaker 3:There's a fine line between famous and infamous. Just for the record.
Speaker 1:We'll see at the end of the episode which way we tip. But no, we appreciate you coming on. Obviously, we're recording this the morning after the I guess I'm going to say historic presidential debate I might say bizarre as well that was held last night between former President Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris. This was their first, maybe only meeting We'll see but pretty substantive discussion. Alex, why don't I just start with you? What were your Let me ask it this way instead of what you saw, what were you expecting going into last night's debate?
Speaker 3:Yeah, no, I think that's a great start. Let me slightly preface it by saying the great thing about presidential debates is, no matter how sophisticated, no matter how steep you are inside of the Washington ecosystem, how much time you've done working on policy or working on campaigns, presidential debates are that moment where, no matter how plugged you in are, you become a spectator just like everybody else, and it's great to see, it's great to have sort of your own reactions and then, like millions of Americans are doing last night and today, both on Twitter or threads or what else, and in person, having your impressions of the two candidates that can be very different From my own expectation set, and I think this is important, and I say this I'm a Democrat, without prefix, suffix or apology. I try to understand my own biases and both on the policy side and the political side, as I try to evaluate these things. To be perfectly honest, the number one thing is that I'm still scarred from the last presidential debate. I think I, as an admirer and somebody that's followed President Biden for years and years, it was very difficult to watch the last one At best. You say it was difficult to watch both of them, but for me it was difficult to see someone who I know has an incredibly vibrant, talented, done amazing things sort of not have his A game anymore, and that was tough to watch. So I was expecting a contrast his A game anymore, and that was tough to watch. So I was expecting a contrast. I was expecting and Brian, we talked about this, I think, a little bit offline, having gone to the convention there was this sense of relief that so many Democrats had at the convention.
Speaker 3:It was a pent up relief that really was felt there because they had a candidate, not that they knew her really well, not that they knew what her policy platforms were, not that they had a clear understanding of the direction she was going to take the country, but that she was vibrant, she was young, she was articulate, she was smart and, as a result, those things having a candidate to be for rather than having a candidate that you constantly have to defend their competency was a tremendous relief, and so last night was the fulfillment, I think, of so many Democrats who saw the last presidential debate and now were able to turn to this one. Really, that relief has now turned into excitement and enthusiasm for a competent, talented, articulate. What they believe I think, many believe is a real leader.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I mean this has been the one question I guess that's been hovering over the entire election, going back a year or so, is can the candidate take on Trump and take the fight to Trump? And for months, maybe a year, we felt like Biden was that best candidate, given what he did in 2020. It was tough to watch that first debate and see that he wasn't up to that task anymore, and I think that was the big question mark of Harris. She was riding high, has just run an almost flawless campaign since she got the nomination, but this was going to be the first really big test. And could she stand up to Donald Trump in a way that so many others who he's debated have been unable to do? And I have to hand it to our team. I mean, I think they went in with that strategy and executed it flawlessly.
Speaker 2:Yeah, and I love the way that you put it, brian who can take the fight to Trump? And she did that as soon as she walked on stage, when you saw that handshake happen the handshake happened on his turf she like crossed over the center of the room in order to force him to shake her hand and sort of almost bizarrely said Kamala Harris, as if he might not know who she is right, it was almost one of those little. It was just one of the many little digs that she just started right off with. And so I think, even if you put aside and I know we're going to talk about the policy issues et cetera but the physicality, I think, of this debate was really telling, from that very first moment to the split screens of her many skeptical facial expressions and his sort of clearly rattled round into the camera, you could see how the debate was playing out even if you didn't even hear a word.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and with all of these campaigns, alex, I'd love to ask you this question. It's about defining your opponent right and defining them ideally before you get defined and everybody knows who Trump is, they have pretty solid opinions on him, but Harris was still a little bit undefined and this was going to be a night where we learned more about her and I think if you were the Trump team, you wanted a more disciplined candidate that maybe held back some of his inner monologue and things he wanted to do to maybe convince those last few thousand voters that are undecided that he's matured or he can do this time and figured it out, and I'll let you answer, but I think we all know that didn't quite work out.
Speaker 3:Yeah, no, I think it's interesting and one of the things that I find as I talk to folks in this space and there are polarizing even amongst the most talented, smartest folks, and I don't consider myself one of those. In terms of the core campaign, I've prepared people for presidential debates. I've prepared people for testimonies or hearings. I've done some of this work in my past. The moment that Yolanda just talked about is well scripted and I bet you money there was a huge fight over it, absolutely yeah. I bet you money that half the group was like that guy is going to end democracy as we know it. Do not go over there and shake his hand.
Speaker 1:And on both sides too. Right, I mean, there was it's been reported there was a huge debate in the Trump campaign of whether they were going to shake Biden's hand in the first debate or treat him like an enemy almost, and they did that.
Speaker 3:And I think, certainly, given the reaction that I felt last night and that I think that we were just talking about it was the exact right decision for her to go over and shake his hand. Yes, it showed the physicality of it, I believe is the right term. The physicality of it was I'm here, I'm strong, I'm going to take you on, let's go, and I think that was the right message on let's go, and I think that was the right message, I think. Pivoting back to your other thing, your other question, I think one of the most important things that I have felt and I'm not alone in this is the idea of how does Kamala Harris win this election? What's the defining thing that gets people to vote for her and not vote for him? And my belief has always been always been for the past few months is, even when it was Joe Biden, if this election was a referendum on Joe Biden, donald Trump was going to win yes. And if this election is a referendum about Donald Trump, joe Biden or Kamala Harris is going to win yes.
Speaker 3:And where you know that positioning of making the election about a candidate or focusing on a candidate, it's hard to do, particularly for a new candidate who wants to define themselves inside the public eye. She wants to stand for something. Let's be clear she's had four years of the worst, best job in America. Right, she gets to be vice president of the United States, but it's not exactly a role in which you clearly articulate a plan and execute it and come out with victories on the end. All vice presidents don't. She's got this opportunity to define herself, but while defining herself, she doesn't want people to forget who she's running against. And so that right mixture of coming out with policy positions, both domestic and foreign, coming out with explaining things about evolution of positions or changes in positions that you've had, but not getting mired down inside of those I was for it before, I was against it kind of discussions.
Speaker 3:She managed to pull it off last night and that's the big win in all of this, which is for her. The big win is she was able to talk about him and talk about the things that she cared about and that he's bad on whether the focus and attention on abortion was real. Also is important the lack of focus and attention on immigration. That was his major talking point that he missed at the beginning and then spent the entire debate trying to recapture and reiterate the talking points that were there, some of which, even though the language wasn't great, those are persuasive talking points about real concerns that Americans have in this country, about immigration, about crime, about the economy. He tried to get those points in, but he wasn't able to set the table in the beginning, I think, in the way that he probably hoped he could.
Speaker 2:Yeah, to your point, alex. I felt like his best line and his best perhaps theme for attack came at the very end of the debate when he said to her why haven't you done it already? You say that you have all these plans, you say that you have a path forward for the country, but you've already been in office for three and a half years. Why hasn't she done it? You could hear that being a refrain, potentially At future rallies.
Speaker 2:You can hear that being a theme we know as insiders in Washington, as you were pointing out, alex, that being veep is not a great job. In fact it's a satirical TV show for a reason, right, but that for the public and for voters, that's part of linking her to an administration that he's made an argument that has been very popular. That has been ineffective and in fact in some places, downright failure when you look at what's happening at the border. So I think that was really strong. It was able to tie her to Biden, it was able to punch a hole in her plans, but at the same time it came in the last minute of a 90, more than 90 minute debate.
Speaker 1:So that goes back to the discipline question, right debate and he lost the other 110 minutes, but we are still 50 days away and Alex, our friend Doug Sosnick does his political analysis every few weeks or so and he had a point I think it was on a podcast a couple weeks ago where he said if I'm on Mars and I come back the week before the election and we're talking economy and immigration Trump's one If we're talking abortion and character Kamala's one he does have 50 days to go. Take those last five minutes of the debate and try to be disciplined. Try to hammer that home. Maybe in a second debate we'll see if it happens. Did she do enough, in your opinion, to present her own case on the economy and connect to voters about how she's going to approach what they're feeling at the kitchen tables?
Speaker 3:which the problem, one of the problems associated with being as and I mean this sincerely as talented on the stump as whether it's undisciplined or whether it's whether it meanders Donald Trump is a very effective speaker and he, through multiple mediums, has communicated directly to you, know the American people, better than nearly any other president we've ever had. He's done a fantastic job of communication. But it's hard to have that and to do what he's done, to attack Biden and attack Harris and then try to subtly shift the expectations game prior to the debate, which is a critical part, Like how do we define a win for Kamala Harris when, basically, you've told everybody that she's dumb, she doesn't know what she's doing, she's never done anything, all of the things that you've said over and over again for the past six weeks, but all of a sudden you're pivoting into. She's a former prosecutor, she's a sitting governor, she's smart, she's it doesn't sell to people. We can't forget that no president in the history of this country has ever done a has ever done more presidential debates than Donald Trump. This was his seventh this. He should own this Right and he pretty much owned the last one. Own this right and he pretty much owned the last one. So expectations game is impossible for him to meet given that dynamic.
Speaker 3:But I think the next logical question is did she do enough to establish herself, to define herself? The short answer, I think, is yes. I'd be hard pressed to. I can give you a laundry list of the five to seven policy items that she talked about, whether it was housing, whether it was a cap gains tax, whether it was kitchen table ideas. I think we're a little short on details. Most of these debates are supposed to be short on details. But I think she effectively communicated that she cares about Americans, not just the wealthiest, but middle America. She cares about the issues that they care about, and I kept hearing it, and again, I try to recognize my own bias. We're missing the point in this country. This electing a president shouldn't be about talking about the president. Trump should be talking about people, not about himself all the time, and I think she did that effectively, which is here's an idea. But let me tell you why it's important to people, because people tell me this. I think she was able to do it well.
Speaker 3:Now, stylistically, she's more scripted. Stylistically, it was not as natural. It didn't come as genuine. I think, as Trump does, he just talks and he's pretty good at it until he reaches the point of where discipline craters and then he goes off the rails. But I think she did enough from a policy prescription and a connection to average voters. That I think was helpful. You cannot overlook the fact that this debate setup was perfect for her. It was set up as well as you could possibly do it for her. She was able to get out uninterrupted time to give answers that she clearly spent a lot of time thinking about and practicing and she was able to basically say those things about as well as you're going to get and from that perspective, that communication I think was effective, which is a little bit of luck, right, because she was the one that wanted to unmute the microphones again.
Speaker 3:Well, it was interesting. We're sitting there with whoever we're sitting, or, unlike when I watch college football, I try to be in a dark room alone when I watch the screen, because usually my teams are losing their first game of the year for the past five years, but nevertheless, I'm listening to my family talk about it and listening to them talk about it, and they were like the moderators. They're so unfair and I was listening to it. They keep letting him talk and not interrupting him, and he keeps trying to talk. And my reaction, which was really funny, because then you turn on Twitter and or you turn on the news and it's it was three against one against Donald Trump, and so the divergence between that is seemingly very difficult to reconcile, but at the end of the day, I felt like he was talking more Now. He was also more aggressive about answering the attacks. He also, I think, felt like he was behind in the debate and needed to come back to the salient points that sell for his voters.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I think that the Times analysis found that he spoke for five minutes longer than Kamala Harris did. He really did get more time. But, alice, I try to be cognizant of my own biases as well, and one of my biases is that I love tax policy, and so I thought personally that when she discussed the Trump sales tax, which is his position on tariffs, I thought that was felt pretty authentic and effective. Again, maybe I'm more interested in tax policy than the average voter who might have been more interested in her policies on housing or on small businesses, et cetera, but that line of a Trump sales tax, I thought that was pretty effective and certainly something that I'm sure the business community was interested in hearing as well. Right, because that's one area where they have felt concern, fear, worry about 100% tariffs on Chinese imports. I mean that would have tremendous ripple effects on the economy.
Speaker 3:Yeah, I totally agree. I think, secondarily, the idea that she reduced sort of the outline plan on cap gains was important From 40 down. That's never going to happen, but it's always one of these things that gets put out to raise revenue inside of these budget forecasts. I think you hit a very salient point, which was she did a very good job of identifying issues and clearly blaming him for them. I had never heard this before, but the Trump abortion ban, the Trump abortion ban, the Trump abortion ban was constant in it and it even resonated with me and I'm certainly not on the social policy side. But her ability to take issues like tariffs, her ability to, I thought she held her own on all, on most of the foreign policy stuff. I don't I expected Trump to do a better job of pinning Afghanistan on her. I don't I expected Trump to do a better job of pinning Afghanistan on her. I don't think he, particularly the withdrawal. I think she did a good time, a good job of talking about inviting the Taliban to Camp David.
Speaker 3:I think that people people who generally follow but aren't terribly sophisticated about what the difference between Al Qaeda and the Taliban I think they thought that Donald Trump invited terrorists into the White House, and that's a pretty damning statement. And he did like most of these things. Nothing is clean, it's complicated, and his ability to distill things into simple messages is one of his strengths. He didn't defend the simple method, the simple attack. He had to explain it. It's nuanced.
Speaker 3:I mean, I will tell you my biggest moment for me, this whole this line, particularly when it came to healthcare and Obamacare and talking about it, he took a total powder on on healthcare and he started, he attacked it and then, when it pivoted to so what do you want to do? I have concepts of a plan. Oh man, the Greg moment, right, yeah, I sort of was like I mean, there are three things you can say. I have concepts of a plan is not one of them. So again, I think that there's. I think, as we look for policy cues, there was nothing that she said that caused a trigger for me inside the business community lens. That raised a huge red flag, which is very effective from a Democratic presidential candidate perspective.
Speaker 1:I also want to go back to the message discipline, because all three issues you two just raised the Trump sales tax, the Trump abortion ban, even the last one, she did an excellent job of flipping that around to be about people, where he immediately went to what he did. I'm doing tariffs to stop China. I'm making all of them stop. I did the Supreme Court. It was all again about him. To your earlier point, alex, where she did, I think, a pretty successful job of making it about you, the voter.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I'm going to channel our colleague, kevin Madden here and say she was able to personalize and localize right. I think that those were really effective moments. And again, this is a time where she used the camera to her advantage, where he wouldn't even look at her and even didn't almost look straight at the camera. He was almost looking at the moderators, which kind of gave him this sort of eyeballs up. Look underneath his brow. She would look directly at the camera in those moments and say this is about you. There is a place for you here in this campaign and in her, what she would like to be her administration. I also thought it was interesting that or she's in Pennsylvania, but she highlighted several times that she has support from Republicans, that she has sort of convinced those moderates that she is somebody who is worthy of their vote, and so I thought that was an effective moment as well for her.
Speaker 1:I didn't know how we'd work in eating pets into this podcast in a neutral way, but I guess we could probably all agree that's an example of localized and personalized going. Horribly bad for a candidate.
Speaker 2:Yes, Everything with moderation right.
Speaker 3:I mean there were some great lines. Great, probably not being the right description. There were some amazing lines, memorable lines, the Trump line, and I think I may paraphrase a little bit, but this Harris wants to do transgender operations on illegal aliens who are in prison. This like mishmash of multiple areas. It didn't hit, it didn't hit and I it should hit more. And I don't understand any of this fixation on cats. I think attacking women for being women in any way, shape or form is a really bad plan by definition. By the way, very clear that trump has little interest in talking about JD Vance.
Speaker 1:Yes.
Speaker 3:No role.
Speaker 1:I mean even watching Vance afterwards I don't know if you guys stayed on or went to bed, but trying to spin that he hasn't talked to his running mate about such a major issue like abortion, given how much they campaign on it. It was painful to see him try to work through that messaging.
Speaker 2:I was actually going to try to bring in Taylor Swift at this moment when we talk about cats.
Speaker 3:Wait, Taylor Swift is coming on. You said you're bringing in Taylor Swift.
Speaker 2:Yeah, oh no, not actually into the room, I wish, but her so much. I felt like so much of the debate was Kamala Harris straight up trolling former President Trump, right? She's just baiting him, and then he would take it and then go down the rabbit hole that she had laid for him, right? So that was so much of the debate. And then to have Taylor Swift come in afterward after the debate announcing her endorsement of Kamala Harris with a picture of herself with her cat I saw that right after I thought, oh my gosh, this was. This is social media gold, right here. Cat photos generally are. Do well on social media.
Speaker 3:I have to tell you, obviously she has very talented media people who handle her stuff and I'm sure she's very engaged in it personally, given how outspoken she's been. But she literally wrote a straight down the middle. I've done my research. You should do your research. Here are the things I believe in and here's who I'm supporting and why you should figure out who you support and why. Wasn't destruction of democracy? It wasn't. He's a criminal, he's a felon. It wasn't any of the other talking points. But you had this reasonable, thoughtful script of her message, juxtaposition between her and a picture of a cat and signing it. I think she signed it like childless cat lady, yes, and so the beginning and the end are brutal and the middle is pretty straight. She played it straight. So incredibly well done, Incredibly well done.
Speaker 3:I do think to go back to something that I again I want to acknowledge my own biases and I try to. There is something that Trump said and it was at the end, but he said it a couple of times in there. But this idea are you better now than you were four years ago? It does resonate with people and 30 years ago there are about 50 things that were disqualifiers for anybody being president, that Donald Trump has done. Okay, it's changed. It's just completely changed, whatever the litmus test is for it. And I do think that we still don't have a clear picture as to how Kamala Harris is going to make people's lives better in America than they have been in the past four years. We can talk about price gouging, we can talk about price caps, we can talk about taxes, but they're around the edges. She still has yet to deliver a forceful case, for I'm going to make your lives better, and Donald Trump continues to say it.
Speaker 3:And if you look at some of the polls, you look at some of the interviews afterwards and they ask people you're a woman. There's 17 issues here that you should be incredibly concerned about. Why are you voting for Donald Trump? Why and it's my life was better four years ago than it has been for the past four years?
Speaker 3:And until you can answer that, until you can articulate, until you can convince people that this is actually a change, irrespective of the fact that there are a lot of things you can say about the fact that we just had a pandemic that Trump suffered from and Biden suffered from, and pulling ourselves out of it from an economic perspective takes time, but unless you can convince yourself that change means your life is going to be better. This is going to be a 49-48 race and it's going to be a toss-up. It's going to be close. It's going to be about get out the vote. It's going to be about six states that matter. That's going to be incredibly narrow and you can't lose sight of what she attempted to do, but I don't think White has captured yet which is translate it to a lot of independent or undecided voters who want things to get better.
Speaker 1:I think this is where the Democratic Party especially gets stuck. It's too much on. Look at how off the rails he is. You can't possibly support that. And you saw that with Biden with his theme of the threat to democracy. You're still seeing that with Harris a little bit with turning the chapter. Moving beyond this. I think she even called it. I think she called Biden's presidency part of the Trump era during the DNC. But I'm with you. I think there's the end of the day. What is this president going to do for me and make my life better? I think she's got some work to do in the next 50 so days to do that.
Speaker 3:And again, the challenge from my perspective is how do you do that without making the primary focus, the primary, the sole attention on her, rather than a referendum, and reminding people of him and his faults and the things that American people don't like about him? That right balance, that right mixture is what wins elections. It's never been more of a case than right now.
Speaker 1:Let me end on this, because that's a good segue to a question I'd love to ask after debates, which is do these debates matter and do they really move the needle? It's very likely we see a poll in two days. That's still neck and neck. At the same time, we saw a debate push a president to decide he wasn't going to run for reelection, and they can have a huge impact on momentum and everything else, not to put you both on the spot. But is this going to give her a boost and start to make this a little bit of a race she has control of? Or are we 49 for the next 50 days?
Speaker 2:Yeah, I'm going second I agree, I think it's still gonna be extremely close. I think it's hard to win a debate. It's easy to lose a debate, right, and I think that she was able to instill confidence, as Alex said in the beginning, that she can do this, she can take on Trump and she can handle this job because she has been somewhat untested because of the unusual and historic nature of how this election season has played out. So I think that part was beneficial for her. But is this definitive? Certainly not. But I will say, on a sort of look forward to the future, I did make my kids watch with me. In fact, they wanted to watch with me. We stayed up a little bit late and I think that there's a lot of question about the usefulness of these debates in terms of a from a political standpoint. But this is our democracy, right, and I think it's important and hopefully I instilled the importance of that in my kids last night.
Speaker 1:You might want to show them some reruns from 20 years ago.
Speaker 3:They're like this, is it? I think it's very as. I'm sitting here watching, and I'm watching the Dow sink to a four-year low, primarily as I'm sitting here watching it. I'm watching the Dow sink to a four-year low, primarily predicated by the debate last night, so that, in and of itself, should be a reaction that, I think, is there.
Speaker 3:I do think that a couple of things. Number one I strongly disagree with people that this was a disastrous debate for Donald Trump. I think he was defensive. I think he spent more time talking about the issues that are generally better for her than for him. I think he made some effective points, but not, I think, as cleanly or as deliberately that he probably could have and should have accolades to Harris for her performance in there. I don't think his performance was calamitous in any way, shape or form. Nobody who was voting for Donald Trump going in should be surprised at what he said and how he said it.
Speaker 3:The question is the people that were watching that debate who were not sure who they were going to vote for. It feels the vice president got a bit better of. We're going to vote for. It feels the vice president got a bit better of. Does it matter? That's really the only question that needs to be answered. We can have those esoteric conversations about debate styles and points made and I think it matters. I don't think it matters as much as Democrats want it to matter today. I think it matters right. I think they would like it to matter.
Speaker 3:This is over. She has convincingly shown to people that she's fit to be president of the United States and they have a clear option to the guy that tried to bring down democracy. Right. That's the narrative. But what I don't know, and sophisticated analysts who follow this and I'm mindful of it it really doesn't matter what people think in California about the debate and it really doesn't matter what people in Ohio think about the debate. It might help them vote down ballot in important races, but it doesn't really matter in the presidential. Trump's going to be up by is up by 13 to 15 points. He's going to win Ohio. The question is how did these themes, how did the tactics? How did this play in Pennsylvania?
Speaker 1:I don't know. There's about seven states and a couple hundred thousand voters that this was named for.
Speaker 3:Yeah, and so, as we see the data that will come out over the next few weeks, it has to be positive. I find it hard to believe that at a national polling level you're going to get outside of a two or three point shift between Trump and Harris nationally for either of them over the next 50 days. It seems like a toss up. Either way, it's really in these key seven states that matter whether or not the specific messages that they focused and target off, whether their vice presidential picks have helped them electorally in any way, shape or form, whether the ballot initiatives that are on the states that are there, what are the get out the vote operations that are inside these seven states and the enthusiasm level for both of the candidates. That will be the things that make the difference to make this debate part of what matters.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I couldn't agree more and just to be fair, I'll give my answer and you guys can tell me if it's a cop out.
Speaker 3:But I think it's a cop out, Brian.
Speaker 1:I believe Trump should be up 52 right now. I mean the idea that a unpopular incumbent drops out after all the primaries, the VP has to jump in and take it and he's not just blowing her away, given the economic concerns is a testament to how well she's doing and how she's using these debates and other big moments to make this a tight race. So I think it has impact. I think it keeps her momentum going. And then to your point, all those other things you just mentioned is what will be the final decision maker, and that's what we got to watch for the next 50 days. But with that, alex, we really appreciate you coming on and the insights you've shared. Always a fun time when you join our podcast. So thanks, appreciate it Absolutely. Thank you so much for having me. I appreciate it very much To all our listeners. Remember to like and subscribe wherever you listen to your podcast. You can follow us on Twitter or X at PentaGRP and on LinkedIn at PentaGroup. I'm your host, brian, here with Elan. Thanks for listening to what's it Stink Awesome.
Speaker 2:Thank you so much, that was fun.