The day after the presidential debate: If you’re a political junky, it’s one of the most interesting of a campaign, as it has the power to shatter your candidate’s momentum and even your own expectations. More than anything, it evokes conversations.
It may not be much of a surprise that within a poll of 114 students – 57 from Harvard and 57 from MIT – 88.5 percent of opinions said vice president Kamala Harris won Tuesday’s debate with Donald Trump. Of what remains, 9.6 percent said it was a draw and 2.6 percent believed Trump won. This choice had a nearly even distribution between the two schools.
Bensu Manav, a postdoctorate at MIT, said one of the biggest differences between the candidates was in how they presented themselves. “I liked Kamala because her aura seemed more grounded,” she said. “Trump was much more erratic during a lot of the debate, especially later in.”
What may be surprising are the elements that sway supporters and the strong correlation with the college attended.
Within the poll, students were asked which of four factors weighed most heavily in their choice between candidates: emotional appeal; policy-related answers; staying on topic; and fact checks.
Forty-six percent of Harvard students said emotional appeal carried the most weight; only 15.7 percent of students at MIT agreed.
Forty percent of students at MIT said fact-checking was their most important factor in picking a winner; only 7 percent of students at Harvard agreed.
Exactly 28 percent of students at each school said policy-related answers played the strongest role, and staying on topic had nearly the same impact on students from both – 19 percent at Harvard and 16 percent at MIT.
This institutional discrepancy between emotional appeal and fact checks may correlate with the schools’ focuses: Harvard is a liberal arts school, where only 30 percent of its undergrad students are majors in science, technology, engineering and math fields, compared with MIT, where 90 percent of the majors offered are Stem.
Philippe Rival, a Harvard graduate working among students, says that much of the candidates performance was based on composure, which is part of the emotional appeal.
“If you watched the first half hour of the debate, you’d probably think he did better, but if you watched the rest, you’d probably think she did, because at the very beginning, it wasn’t the best start for her,” Rival said. “As soon as he started being aggressive, she got in the groove and responded really well, and that took a little while to kick in. In the overall debate, she got under his skin more and more, and you could see that frustrated him as the debate went on.”
Andrés Salazar, a research scientist at MIT, says that the debate is simply a reinforcement of people’s opinions, especially when not examined through a policy based lens.
“When you actually change your mind or decide, you have to look into why, and what arguments specifically connect,” he said. “Rather than relying on emotions, look into what policies or arguments are shared.”
Jessie Lin, an MIT undergraduate student who watched the debate in her dorm with friends, also believes a debate has little influence over the outcome – and not because of policy.
“Before the debate started, our political science professor, David Singer, told us that the debates don’t usually have much of an influence on the election,” she said. “But one of the major factors that the candidates focus on is their emotional appeal. The whole point of the debate is for the candidates to try and reach their audience that way.”
For Pablo Eguiguren, an international student at Harvard Business School, policy is his main focus in deciding.
“Basically as a non-American, one of the concerns I have is about what will happen with trade with other countries,” he said. “I’m from Chile and I would like to know what will happen with our exports to the U.S., and the whole discussion around trade war and tariffs is important. Some of that was mentioned in the debate last night but I still don’t know what will happen and I don’t know Kamala’s policy on that either.”
A stronger
Please consider making a financial contribution to maintain, expand and improve Cambridge Day.
We are now a 501(c)3 nonprofit and all donations are tax deductible.
Please consider a recurring contribution.