As the 2024 presidential election approaches rapidly, the vice presidential debate between Democratic candidate Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Republican candidate Ohio Sen. JD Vance sparked conversations among students who gathered Tuesday night for a watch party at Lewis Hall Auditorium, hosted by the USC Political Student Assembly and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
The debate was the third of the 2024 presidential election cycle and the second since Vice President Kamala Harris replaced President Joe Biden as the nominee of the Democratic Party.
Harris and the Republican presidential nominee, former President Donald Trump, debated last month.
For many, the debate touched on critical issues, but reactions were mixed. While some students were deeply invested in particular topics like reproductive rights, gun violence and immigration, others were left disappointed by what they saw as a lack of content.
For Ellen Davis, a public policy major from Alabama, the stakes couldn’t be higher. As she watched the debate, her mind was firmly on one issue: reproductive rights.
Growing up in Alabama, which has one of the most restrictive abortion policies in the country, Davis’ personal connection to the topic runs deep.
“I’ve worked with groups that provide abortions, and it’s just not accessible anywhere in the Deep South. We have the highest maternal mortality rate in the country, and as a woman, that scares me.”
Davis’s focus was not on the candidates’ performance, but on the impact their policies could have on women like her.
“I know if I ever need to seek healthcare, I have the resources to do it, but so many women can’t leave their state, and that instills genuine fear in me,” she said.
However, not every student was as deeply moved by the debate. Jien Chen, a public policy major, expressed frustration with the lack of meaningful dialogue.
“I feel like it’s difficult for me to even say anything because nothing really stood out,” Chen said. “A lot of the rhetoric was just repeated campaign talking points. The mediators would ask a question, and then the candidates would sidetrack it.”
While Chen acknowledged that debates often contain a certain level of drama, they were disappointed that neither candidate seemed to offer anything new or substantial.
“Part of me is here for the drama, but I also wanted real answers—and I didn’t get them,” they said.
Jonathan Chao, a student majoring in intelligence and cyber operations, shared Chen’s sentiment that the debate lacked depth but took a different approach to analyzing its impact.
“Nothing,” he said, “A lot of nothing.”
For him, the lack of a standout moment was less of a failure and more a reflection of how close the race is.
“This election is going to be decided by a small group of voters in swing states. No matter how this debate goes, neither candidate is performing terribly, so I don’t think it’s going to move the needle much.”
Chao viewed the debate through the lens of polling data and election strategy, believing that the outcome is more about who can sway the undecided voters than about any single moment in a debate.
For freshman Ruby Belt, a double major in political science and mathematics/economics, the debate reinforced her support for Walz and Vice President Kamala Harris. Her priorities in this election are reproductive rights, gun violence and voting rights.
“I really agree with a lot of what Tim Walz has to say about reproductive rights and gun violence, especially the policies he’s implemented in Minnesota,” Belt said. “Minnesota is ranked highly for women’s health, and I think it’s a huge priority for him to protect women’s reproductive rights.”
Belt also highlighted Walz’s stance on gun safety, noting his support for an assault weapons ban — a policy she agrees with.
In contrast, she expressed disagreement with JD Vance on many of his policies, particularly regarding women’s health and democracy.
Immigration was a crucial issue for Florianne Jourde, a sophomore majoring in health and human sciences. Coming from a different country herself, Jourde was very interested in the VP candidates’ positions on immigration policy.
“The U.S. economy works a lot with immigration, and immigrants help the country by doing jobs that are classified as lower-class but are actually essential,” she said.
Jourde was concerned about Vance’s stance on immigration, which she felt could harm the economy by limiting the contributions of immigrants.
“We need to acknowledge that these people have a place in the country. They bring so much to the economy here.”
At the end of the vice presidential debate, both candidates delivered their closing statements, emphasizing their visions for the country’s future. Despite sharp disagreements on key issues like the economy, healthcare and foreign policy, they assured the audience of their mutual respect and shook hands, symbolizing their commitment to maintaining civility.