By Tihut Tamrat, Contributing Writer
Hosted by Phil Saenz, Southwestern Political Science Professor, and organized by the Associated Student Organization(ASO) and Office of Student Activities, the loud and lively Presidential Debate Watch Party at Southwestern College was one to attend this past Tuesday. A polling survey QR code, formulated by Professor Saenz and the department, was displayed around the room to track general stances and reactions throughout the Presidential Debate. With pizza and beverages to entice college students, Conference Room 64-238 was filled with eager students excited to see the long-awaited debate between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris.
The watch party at Southwestern College was as diverse as it could get. Young interested college students taking a political science class, parents of college students dropping by to visit their child, Professors of Political Science, Philosophy, and Debate, older women, children of Professors, faculty, Black students, white students, Asian students, and those who wanted to watch the debate in an air-conditioned, pizza-filled room, happy to be watching with company.
Gearing up for the debate, Vilma Moore, Southwestern Adjunct English Instructor who identifies as Hispanic, shares with Voice & Viewpoint her reason for her attendance at Southwestern’s Presidential Debate Watch Party, “ I watched the DNC and it was nice, from my perspective, hearing someone who can actually speak,” said Moore.
Kenneth Kennedy, an Engineering major at Southwestern who identifies as African-American and Latino shares, “I primarily entered this debate wanting to learn more about the candidates, especially VP Harris since she’s pretty new to this race and voters like myself haven’t really gotten a chance to learn about her potential administration apart from the Biden administration.”
6 o’clock rolled around and the debate was underway, a hush fell over the crowded room as eyes were peeled to one of 5 huge screens set up around the room.
Harris opened with a statement that set the scene for how the rest of the debate would go. Trump counteracted the opening statement with attacks on Harris and incoherent facts that frustrated the crowd of listeners, and the debate moderators, as the debate went on.
“I was very surprised at some of Trump’s facts. However, the most standout one was about the Governor of West Virginia. I didn’t realize that they were executing newborn babies in West Virginia. It leaves me wondering why he brought that up in response to an abortion question when that just seems like murder to me, but he’s the genius, not me,” commented Kennedy.
During the commercial break, the room filled with voices dissecting what happened in the first half of the debate, and Professor Saenz urged everyone to fill out the polling survey. Questions like who the attendee supports before the debate, after the debate, and which candidate did a better job at addressing the hot-topic issues discussed in the debate, such as the economy, border-security, immigration, foreign policy, abortion, environment, and protecting our democracy were in the survey.
Creative questions like who the attendee supports before the debate, after the debate, and which candidate did a better job at addressing the hot-topic issues discussed in the debate, such as the economy, border-security, immigration, foreign policy, abortion, environment, and protecting our democracy.
After a brief commercial break, the reactions in the room told a story of people watching Trump with very little hope that he’d turn his messaging around. Nearly everyone rooted for Harris with side comments of grunts and mimicked laughter as Trump tried to recover.
The debate had ended and the discussion portion began, first, the results of the polling survey were shared with 72 responses. 62.5% of the room polled that they came to the debate night wanting to vote for Harris and would be leaving still voting for Harris, 1.4% polled came in voting for Trump and would be leaving voting for Harris, and 18.1% polled that they came in undecided and would be leaving voting for Harris.
Before/After Breakdown of Voter Preference
More results of the survey showed a pie-graph breakdown that Harris did a better job addressing the economy at 80.6%, border-security at 76.4%, immigration at 81.9%, foreign-policy at 81.9%, abortion issue at 94.4%, environment at 93.1%, an overall better job at voicing her policies in Protecting Our Democracy at 88.9%. All of which are percentages that reflect poorly on Trump’s performance at Southwestern College.
After results were read, Professor Saenz came around the room with a mic to anyone that wanted to speak on their reactions. Many people spoke, some commenting on who they will vote for, remarks on Trump’s falsehoods, and many sharing their background and what candidates’ responses stood out to them that will inform their decision on November 5th.
“After watching the debate I feel even worse about Trump because he sounded pretty insane. I have a more positive view towards Harris, as I feel she handled the debate well, but I still didn’t believe that I got a clear view on what she believes or her policies,” stated Kennedy.
“I think Trump missed opportunities to discuss any future plans, or to provide solutions. Mainly, Trump appeared more rattled and defensive as the debate continued. Harris could have been a little more specific on plans to help small businesses and the middle class,” conveyed Moore.
Professor Saenz concluded the discussion with his goal for putting on the event. “ I want to remind all of you that this is an ongoing effort to try to increase voter registration. ASO, student activities, and myself will be continuing on with that effort, with more info on the electoral college on October 15th. I want to thank all of you for coming out tonight, I appreciate it.”
This article has been updated.
