With less than two weeks to go until election day, the political circus is broadcast on national television showing our presidential candidates dueling for the hearts and minds of the American people with their tongues. Campus is usually a buzz with debate watch parties and good old-fashioned retail politics, but with Massachusetts locked down, Harvard’s political organizations got creative with how to increase viewership for the first presidential debate on campus. Both the Harvard Democrats and Harvard Republicans relied on Zoom to create a community in these politically polarized times.
The Independent asked the presidents of both clubs (Wes Donhauser ‘21 and Menat Banhasy ‘21) to declare a winner from the September 29 presidential debate, but in the wake of backlash to the Harvard Republicans endorsement of President Donald J. Trump, only the Harvard Dems supported their champion. We surveyed them and the broader community to dissect what Harvard students thought were important metrics to look at.
Aden Barton ‘24, the reigning high school Policy Debate champion, helped us break down what to look for in a winner. He explained that, in debates like these, “There’s an objective metric, meaning who made the better arguments on a substantive level. But there’s also the subjective metric, meaning who made it seem as if they made the better arguments, which is to say whom viewers thought won.” As a judge, he scored the contest even but said that, “On a meta level, it was a win for Biden.” “The fact that there existed some equilibrium or balance between the two candidates meant Biden reached the only threshold that mattered. He’s eight points above Trump in most polls, so a tie each debate for Biden is a functional win.” The Harvard Dems echoed our independent expert saying that, “Joe Biden clearly won the debate. He respected the debate’s process and expectations in terms of when to speak, time to speak, and responding to the question at hand, in addition to expressing positions on issues that align with many of our own.” The Harvard Republicans declined to comment on the question of winning.
However when asked about which ideas came across the most in the 90-minute affair, the responses were mixed. Unsurprisingly, the Dems were quick to mention Biden’s strong emphasis on “the COVID-19 pandemic, with health care, while addressing climate change, when fighting for racial justice.” However, the Republicans argue that, “Debates are rarely about policy substance. Looking at a candidate’s track record and legislative history is a wholly better metric for where a candidate’s policy proposals will go.” They went as far as to say that, “One should not put much stock in the rehearsed and cookie cutter sound bites that each candidates attempts to jab into the conversation. One should listen and evaluate a candidate’s tone, poise, and adaptability.”
Finally, I wanted to know how the debate’s changed our trust in democracy. Interestingly, both political clubs thought the debates had no effect on constituents’ trust in our aging electoral system. The Harvard Republicans said, “Our faith in democracy remained the same. The very fact that an individual can strongly challenge our current President and that the media is free to widely condemn the President shows the strength of our democracy.” To similar effect, Menat answered personally saying that, “My faith in the democratic system has increased slightly. I personally have always believed in the power of our democratic system to make our country and world a better place.”
It seems clear that now more than ever before our individual voices matter. So, if you still do trust in the election and are an eligible voter, head over the Harvard Votes Challenge to make sure you’re registered.
Noah Tavares ‘24 (noahtavares@college.harvard.edu) is very politically apolitical.
NOTE: This piece was written prior to the October 22 presidential debate. All organizational and student quotes were collected before then.