While the presidential debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump had many memorable moments, viewers seemed to step away with more questions about the candidates’ policies than answers.
With both candidates interrupting one another, Americans felt that the nominees often discussed issues that had little to do with the questions being asked by moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis. Viewers watched with bated breath for the two candidates to acknowledge one another, which finally came through Harris crossing the stage and introducing herself to Trump.
In contrast, the vice presidential debate began with a cordial handshake and maintained that level of decorum throughout the majority of the debate.
Cayden Stone, a junior majoring in political science at Boise State, noted several key differences between the presidential and vice presidential debates.
“We had the Harris [and] Trump debate, I think that was maybe better than the first round of Biden versus Trump in 2020 but still, it did lack a lot of decorum in some areas,” Stone said. “The first presidential debate I ever watched was the 2012 one between Obama and Mitt Romney, and it began with Mitt Romney wishing Obama a happy anniversary and making a joke about how that was the most romantic way to spend his night, but we would never see something like that nowadays.”
Stone explained that recent national debates lack that level of decorum and ease.
“A lot [of] that’s due to polarization and sorting within our political spectrum, but I think it has become more common, especially, it’s not just [at] the presidential level,” Stone said. “I think U.S. Senate debates as well, one that I like to look at is JD Vance versus Tim Ryan in Ohio in 2022, which is ironic because JD Vance is running for vice president now. That one [debate] is a really good example of going back and forth and not great decorum.”
According to Stone, who is enrolled in POLS 402: Campaigns and Elections, Gen Z is craving that sense of professionalism on the debate stage again.
“It’s something that we talk about [in class], how that informs voters,” Stone said. “I think what we’ve seen is usually voters, considering all the crazy debates that we’ve seen in previous years, they’re a lot more receptive and a lot more favorable to candidates or hopeful on debates like we saw at the vice presidential debate that are very cordial, very organized, very civil.”
Bridget Gibson, a sophomore at Boise State majoring in political science and a member of Boise State’s debate team “Talkin’ Broncos”, provided her take on the role shock value plays on the national debate stage.
“I think [the] national level is the kind of debate that draws the most attention, which I think has normalized a lot of shock value in debate because, at the end of the day, a debate is supposed to be educational for the people participating and the people watching it, it’s so you can learn about the candidates,” Gibson said.
The Trump versus Hilary Clinton debate in 2016 introduced Gibson to debate at the national level.
“My first introduction was Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton and I think it’s kind of to me before I started doing debate and I was watching these, I was like, ‘Oh, maybe that’s just how it runs — they [the candidates] do personal attacks,” Gibson said. “Then as I got into speech and debate — I would never treat my opponent the way they’re treating their opponents.”
Gibson said she feels disheartened by the blatant lack of respect illustrated in past presidential debates.
“At the end of the day, we’re here to discuss issues. We’re not there to create enemies. We’re not there to destroy somebody’s reputation. Slander them. It’s just to have discourse, to help educate people,” Gibson said. “It’s definitely disheartening knowing what I know now about debate, seeing the progression of debates just becoming more and more aggressive and personally attacking.”
Gibson explained that while older members of Gen Z may remember the days of Obama and Romney, most don’t know anything other than muted mics and clickbait sound bites.
“As we [Gen Z] got older, I think that it’s definitely seemed as though the norm has been these aggressive attacking debates,” Gibson said. “Unfortunately, Gen Z doesn’t necessarily want to go away from these aggressive attacking debates, because I saw a lot of discourse about this debate being boring … between Vance and Walz.”
Jaclyn Kettler, Associate Professor of Political Science at Boise State witnessed years of debates prior to the new era of political norms.
Although Kettler believes these debates had their faults, they still maintained a level of professionalism that has been absent in recent debates.
“I think at the state and local level, you’ll still see debates that can be more civil, where they engage more,” Kettler said. “I think it [the vice presidential debate] probably did seem really unique for members of Gen Z who are not used to seeing the style of debate as much whereas for older generations … it’s not to say every single debate was like, super friendly, happy, but there was more agreement on different things or at least some sort of acknowledgment of some shared values.”
Kettler shared that she felt the vice presidential debate had a clearer focus on policy and more substance than the presidential debate.
“It [the presidential debate] did not feel like there was very much nuance or deep policy discussions. There were a lot of very general sorts of policy statements here and there, but it really wasn’t getting into substantive policy debates,” Kettler said. “It’s been a little hard to separate out what’s due to just general trends in American politics, things like polarization, and what is kind of the Trump element.”
