Sept. 10 marked the second debate of the 2024 presidential campaign season and the first between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump. The debate took place at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; there was no live audience, but over 67 million viewers tuned in, including Vassar students at watchparties across campus.
After the first presidential debate in June, President Joe Biden struggled to finish arguments and defend his presidential record; many have speculated that the widespread backlash resulted in Biden ending his run for reelection and endorsing Harris as the new Democratic nominee.
Professor of Political Science Richard Born said, “I had more reservations about Harris and her ability to perform well than I should have. I thought, basically, she’d hold her own. It wouldn’t be a disaster like Biden versus Trump, but I thought she was really impressive.”
A student who watched the debate, Saskia Stripling ’28, expressed similar sentiments: “I kind of expected it to be more chaotic than it was, because I remember the one from four years ago where they were like, yelling at each other, and no one turned off the mics, and it was just chaos,” she said. “So I was impressed that Kamala was just laughing the whole time.”
Students at a debate watch party in Jewett House responded well to some of Harris’ more biting quips. When, early in the night, Harris asserted, “Tonight, you’re going to hear from the same old, tired playbook,” students responded with a cascade of “oohs” and snaps.
To Born, Harris’ greatest liability was the fact that nobody knew much about her: a perennial problem for vice presidents running for chief executive. Born thought Harris had overcome this, showcasing herself as smart and articulate. “They can now see her as a realistic, decent president,” he commented.
Born stated a secondary liability of Harris’ is that she is known from her senatorial days as being liberal. Trump stressed this point multiple times in the debate, calling his opponent a “Marxist” and a “radical left liberal.” Born elaborated, “She’s just got to convince people she’s more centrist.” It is much more important, he added, for Harris to convince voters she is not too liberal than to appear to lack fixed principles.
Harris repeatedly and strongly endorsed fracking—possibly an appeal to voters in Pennsylvania, the debate’s location and a swing state that will help decide the election. “The fracking thing was crazy,” said Stripling, but noted that there was essentially nothing Harris could have done to lose her vote. “I’m not gonna vote for Trump,” she said. Born thought Harris’ strong support for fracking could only be beneficial: No voter would leave her over it, and it might bring some Pennsylvanians to her side.
In Michigan, another key swing state, Harris’ attempts at centrism may have the opposite effect. Michigan has one of the United States’ largest Arab American populations; Dearborn, a suburb of Detroit where over 50 percent of the population identified as Arab American or North African in the 2020 census, has been a hotspot of pro-Palestinian protest as the Israel Defense Forces have killed over 41,000 Palestinians and wounded over 95,000 in its assault on Gaza.
While Harris called for a ceasefire, the return of hostages to Israel and a two-state solution, she was also staunchly pro-Israel. The Vice President stated, “I will always give Israel the ability to defend itself, in particular as it relates to Iran and any threat that Iran and its proxies pose to Israel.”
Born noted, “Even though she’s expressed more sympathy for the Gazans than Biden, you know, some of them [Michiganders] will not vote for her.”
Students also noticed the candidates’ equivocations. During a particularly long response from Harris about conservative shifts in her policy since 2020, multiple students at the Jewett House watch party yelled versions of “She’s not answering the question!” at the screen in exasperation. Stripling agreed: “They never answered the questions… Both of them, just in different ways.”
Vassar students interviewed by The Miscellany News also distinguished a weakness of Trump’s not shared by Harris. “He is simply incoherent,” commented Julia Fallon ’28, of Trump’s performance. Stripling agreed: “He was talking about nothing the whole time.”
According to Born, Harris’ strongest moments were when she goaded Trump into making himself look bad. “She basically got Trump to self-destruct. She tore him apart,” he stated.
One example of this was when Trump, while discussing immigration, said, “In Springfield, they’re eating the dogs. The people that came in, they’re eating the cats, they’re eating—they’re eating the pets of the people that live there.” Harris looked on, laughing. Moderator David Muir corrected the record, noting that the city manager of Springfield, Ohio, had clarified there were no credible reports of immigrants harming, injuring or abusing pets.
Born and Vassar students interviewed by The Miscellany News largely seemed to think the debate will not have a strong impact on the election results. “I don’t think the numbers are going to change much,” said Joaquim Ross ’28. “People already know what side they’re on.” Stripling believes that the debate would not convince undecided voters to vote for either side. “I think everyone would be confused watching that debate,” she said, “because it didn’t really make any sense.” Ted Twit ’28 disagreed, saying, “I think young voters are going to abandon her more than she thinks.”
This November will be most Vassar students’ first opportunity to help elect a new president. Students looking to vote in the election can register in their home state or in Dutchess County with their Vassar address. Students voting in their home state at Vassar must request a mail-in ballot to their Vassar mailbox; students voting in Dutchess County can vote by mail or on campus in the AULA on Nov. 5 from 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. For more voting information, visit Vassar’s “Civic Engagement – Vassar Votes” page.
The comments of students and Professor Born broadly reflect those expressed in (responsible) mainstream media. I was perplexed, however, by the small amount of comment on the true crux of the matter: the choice is much less about policy and positions, which shift with the tides, as it is about character and fitness, which are durable and inescapable. I do hope that members of the Vassar community (and the electorate in general) clearly see the vast difference between the candidates on the things that matter. Yes, they’re both politicians and dance around questions as it suits them; no, they are not otherwise alike in any aspect. I believe Professor Born would agree that presidential campaigns are, in the end, often decided upon matters of the heart; which of these two candidates should the world see as the face of America?