Lying just got harder, Pence 2020 emerges, and other things we learned this week

Trump has magically maintained his ability to shock

It shouldn't still be possible to be surprised by the awful things Donald Trump has said and done. In fact, one of the dangers for his opponents has been that at a certain point, his racism and sexism and general cruelty would essentially be baked-in – so much taken for granted that it became more difficult to get people riled up about them.

But that underestimates the depths of his offensiveness. Because Mr. Trump is the sort of person capable of producing a story like the one that broke on Friday.

In a video from 2005 that was obtained by the Washington Post, Mr. Trump boasts (in really obscene terms) about kissing and groping women without invitation, because "when you're a star they let you get away with it."

Voters who have stuck with Mr. Trump to this point have a way of excusing anything and everything he says and does, so they may be fine with his explanation on Friday that it was just "locker room talk." But there are still at least a few uncommitted voters out there, including conservative women, trying to convince themselves that maybe they can live with him.

It might get a bit easier to do that, when they go a few days without learning some new terrible thing about him. But even when his behaviour as a candidate doesn't present some fresh shock, his record as a human being can be counted upon to do so.

It may be getting harder for candidates to lie with impunity

Tuesday's vice-presidential debate, between two middle-aged professional politicians with father-knows-best airs, did not scream cutting-edge. But it wound up highlighting one way that modern campaign methods could change political discourse for the better.

By most judgments, Mike Pence won his showdown with Tim Kaine – Donald Trump's running mate coming off more assured than Hillary Clinton's hyperactive one, and probably calming a few anxious Republicans in the process. But Mr. Pence did so, in large part, by repeatedly looking straight into the camera and calmly insisting that Mr. Trump had not said various offensive things that the agitated Mr. Kaine was accurately citing.

That wouldn't have much mattered in debates past, because they're usually judged much more on style than substance (the "who looks better with the sound off" test). But in a sign of how campaigns' rapid-response units are evolving, the Democrats made it matter by almost instantaneously putting out a video that mashes up Mr. Pence's denials with Mr. Trump saying the exact things he denied.

This was hardly as noble a fact check as what journalistic sites like Politifact produce. (It appears Mr. Kaine was deliberately goading Mr. Pence into providing the video's content.) But it was eminently more shareable.

Such efforts might not shape as many subsequent impressions of a presidential debate, which more voters will watch live, as a low-rated vice-presidential one. But the more effective campaigns get at this kind of reaction, the more candidates might pause before spouting easily refuted mistruths.

'That Mexican thing' is still a thing

If anything out of the vice-presidential debate has staying power, it may be a throwaway few words uncharacteristic of the disciplined Mr. Pence: "Senator, you've whipped out that Mexican thing again."

The line, in response to Mr. Kaine's invocation of Mr. Trump calling Mexicans "rapists," may only have raised the odd eyebrow among most viewers. But it has lived on in Hispanic media, of both the traditional and social variety.

It's not as though most Hispanic voters are going to vote for Mr. Trump anyway. But needing a low turnout among those voters to have any chance at all, the Trump/Pence ticket can ill afford to be serving up motivating hashtags and rallying cries.

Pence 2020 is also a thing, for now

Even if he was called out on his truthfulness, and blundered into the Mexican misstep, Mr. Pence still did wonders for his personal stock on Monday.

A few months ago, he really was not much of a national player – just the lesser known of his state's two most recent Republican governors. But the silver-domed, staunchly conservative former talk-radio host (he described himself as "Rush Limbaugh on decaf") looked and sounded so much more like a traditional GOP nominee than his running mate that he prompted wistfulness about what this campaign would look like with him at the top of the ticket – and immediate speculation that he has positioned himself well for the next round of primaries.

Contrasted with other Republican prospects less toxic than the most maligned nominee in party history, Mr. Pence's star may quickly fade. (And that assumes Mr. Trump isn't campaigning for re-election in 2020, which is far from certain.) But for now, he is among the very few mainstream members of his party who has gained political capital this year.

Bill Clinton remains a liability

It can't be fun for Bill Clinton, being kept on a relatively short leash by his wife's campaign, doing mostly low-profile gigs while other surrogates – Barack and Michelle Obama and Bernie Sanders among them – get the limelight. But this week, the former president served reminder yet again of why that's his lot this election.

His latest flub, and far from the first to involve an ill-considered shot at Mr. Obama (whose popularity with Democrats Ms. Clinton really needs to piggyback on), came at a rally in Michigan on Monday. Making a reasonable point about needed fixes to the Affordable Care Act, Mr. Clinton wildly overstepped (at least from a Democratic perspective) by describing Mr. Obama's signature legislation as "the craziest thing in the world" for the way it has caused middle-class insurance premiums to rise – offering manna from heaven to conservative talk-show hosts across the land.

It wasn't quite as bad as his shots at Mr. Obama during the 2008 Democratic nomination race, which, fairly or not, were seen as racially tinged. And it may not even have been as problematic for Ms. Clinton as some of her husband's other outbursts earlier this year, including an extremely unhelpful confrontation with Black Lives Matter protesters.

But whether it's a matter of losing his touch with age or not knowing how to play second fiddle, one of the most gifted campaigners in history keeps proving that he's more trouble than he's worth on the stump for his spouse.

Democrats can start getting greedy again

As Ms. Clinton opened up a big lead coming out of the parties' summer conventions, many Democrats were in an expansionist mood – dreaming big of winning the presidential vote in states where that hadn't happened in decades, and of their momentum (or at least dislike for Mr. Trump) spilling over enough to give them back the Senate and conceivably even the House of Representatives.

Then the race tightened during Ms. Clinton's tough September, and her campaign signalled to party members that it was focused only on making sure it got to 270 electoral votes.

After Ms. Clinton's trouncing of Mr. Trump in the first of their three debates, the polling gap was widened again. And amid reports of renewed angst among Republicans about down-ticket races, 270 is back to seeming a little unambitious.

That could be a mixed blessing for the Clinton campaign as it tries to keep its eye on the prize. It has already been easy to find Democrats clamouring for more central resources – for instance in Georgia, where polls have shown the presidential race close, but Ms. Clinton is scarcely investing anything in advertising – and such calls can be expected to grow louder if her current lead holds. But it's a nice enough problem that her team should hope to still have it after the second presidential debate on Sunday night.

U.S. ELECTION 2016: MORE FROM THE GLOBE AND MAIL