While the previous presidential debate watch party was a crowded and excited affair, the vice presidential debate drew a smaller crowd and had a calmer atmosphere. Students sat at tables in the events barn and talked quietly amongst themselves–a stark contrast to the packed Red Pit that roared with commentary from students during the Harris vs. Trump debate. Given the high stakes of the impending election, it is more important than ever that students have a space to come together and stay up to date on the state of the election.
Common Ground hosted this watch party in the Events Barn Monday, Sept. 30 to encourage students to engage with both sides of the political spectrum, the program’s main objective. This event, which was titled,“Debate and Relate,” was accompanied by hot chocolate and baked goods. Watch parties like these provide a space for students to take their heads out of their laptops or problem sets and turn their attention to something more important, along with enjoying each other’s company.
Many students came to this event out of genuine curiosity, hoping to learn more about the vice presidential candidates and their views, rather than the entertainment factor sought out at the presidential debate. Jasmine Bonilla ’28 told The Spectator, “I came because I’m interested in JD and Tim, and so far I don’t know much about them…even though I’ll be too young to vote in this election I feel like I should know a little bit about it.”
Another student, Ashkan Khilwatgar ’28, shared, “I am here because this is an election that will determine U.S. policy not only for the next four years, but the years after that as well. Ensuring that we are educated in our representatives’ views ensures that U.S. democracy is headed in a just and favorable direction in the future.”
Prior to the debate, students completed an online Common Ground questionnaire in which they were asked how they heard about the watch party and provided feedback on Common Ground events. As we neared the start of the debate, Common Ground ambassadors dimmed the lights.
CBS News, the hosting network of the debate, chose not to issue live fact checking of the candidate’s statements unlike the presidential debate which was hosted by ABC News. Governor Tim Walz of Minnesota and Senator JD Vance of Ohio took the stage. Moderator Norah O’Donnell began the debate by posing a foreign policy question on the escalating conflict in the middle east. Both candidates voiced support for Israel, however differed in their stances on the U.S. approach to nuclear weapons in Iran. As the debate continued both candidates continued to defend their political stances. Moderators asked pointed, specific questions on a range of issues including America’s border with Mexico, abortion policy, the housing market, healthcare, aid for parents and childcare, election practices, gun violence and economic plans.
Moderators continually asked the speakers to respect their time constraints. Walz concluded the debate by commending democratic politicians and emphasizing a positive outlook on democracy. Vance followed with his own cocnluding statements in which he by criticized Harris’ energy policies and expressed his faith in the American Dream.
Throughout the Barn some students intently listening to the topics discussed, not taking their eyes off the screen. Other attendees multitasked–working on assignments, taking notes, reading and even braiding each other’s hair.
According to The New York Times, Vance spent about eight minutes attacking his opponent while Walz spent about nine minutes doing the same. This is a decrease in attacking time as compared to the presidential election in which Trump spent about 13 minutes attacking his opponent and Harris used about 17 minutes attacking Trump, according to CNN. Even without personal attacks, there were still instances of interruption and the hosts turning off the candidates’ microphones.
A polarized political landscape in America increases the importance of being politically informed, so that students focus on legitimate political principles and policy goals instead of a personal disdain for the opposing candidate and party. Some attendees believed this debate resembled a political scene more similar to a pre-2020 environment.
The candidates respected each other’s time and generally spoke to one another in a respectful manner, focusing more on policy issues and dissatisfaction with the performance of the other’s running mate. Common Ground ambassador Robert Neithart ’26 agreed with this assertion: “The other ambassadors and I were very happy with the turnout; it was great to see a debate in which two candidates respected one another’s time and engaged in some substantive dialogue.”
Both candidates focused more on policy than in recent debates, a grounding and a refreshing contrast. Briana Martin ’28 concurred: “I think it was nice that they were mostly civil towards each other.”
During a commercial break the Common Ground student ambassador Andrew Hohmann ’26 took a moment to express his gratitude to the attendees of the events, “From the bottom of all of our [Common Ground] hearts, we are so thankful that these events have been a success because all we want is to get you all informed and involved.” Common Ground and its ambassadors work to boost civic and political awareness amongst students and provide a platform for individuals of different disciplines, political ideologies, and perspectives to come to an understanding.
Sarafina Madden ’26, Common Ground Ambassador, shared her thoughts on the event. Articulating the importance of hosting events like debate watch parties, Madden commented, “Common ground is committed to providing forums for students to stay “in the know” about the state of the race and share their feelings and opinions about the election.” She elaborated: “These events are vital to ensuring that Hamilton students do not lose sight of the stakes of this election and remain engaged in politics, even in the face of busy schedules and a rigorous course load.”
Common Ground is committed to hosting more events like these: “Common ground intends to have several events leading up to election night. One even we are working on is a “election support group” where students will be able to talk in small groups about the election. “We also plan to ask government faculty to attend the event so they can contextualize the election and share their expertise,” Madden noted.
Sharing her thoughts on the debate, Madden explained “I expected more aggression from Walz but I thought he did an excellent job criticizing Trump and emphasizing the threat that he poses to American democracy. Vance is definitely a chameleon. He was clearly making an effort to rebrand the Trump and Vance presidency as moderate and reasonable and win over swing voters who are weary of Trump’s erraticism.”
Robert Neithart ’26 shared his response to the debate: “It was actually a more productive exchange than I’d expected. I know the last few debates haven’t been the best models of effective dialogue between candidates, but I’d say it exceeded my expectations in that respect.” He harped on the importance of hosting events like this one: “I think events like this are important because they encourage students to remain engaged and informed in the political processes that are happening in our country. I think it’s pretty easy to settle into a bubble on this campus, so remaining privy to developments occurring at large is always a good thing.”
The following day, there was chatter amongst the study body about who the debate. Some thought Vance was sharper and generally clearer in his stances, while others criticized him for his reputation for having inconsistencies in his policy positions. Some students seemed underwhelemd by Walz’s performance, but believed that he performed decently well despite only recently entering presidental race.
In discussing the debate, though many students noted that they did not believe the debate would have any bearing on the outcome of the election and that irrespective of the speakers performances, the trajectory of the race most likely will remain unchanged.
The debate was successful in inspiring spirited political dialogue among the Hamilton student body, and inviting students to engage in debates of their own. Students should continue to take advantages of ones similar to this in order to both remain informed about the current political landscape and question their own beliefs, all while eating cookies and maybe making friends in the process.
Common Ground will continue to host events, engage with the student body. “We look forward to hosting more outreach events for students and incorporating student feedback into our event planning process,” said Madden.
Neithart continued, “Speaking on behalf of my fellow Common Ground Ambassadors, we love hosting these sorts of gatherings that bring members of the campus community together to engage with interesting socio-political topics. We’ll be putting on more events throughout the fall and spring, so make sure to keep an eye on your email and socials for future events!”
