Guest writers Eira Prakash and Antara Kshirsagar attended Columbia’s Debate Watch Party with an analysis by Michael Miller, a professor of Political Science at Barnard and a Fox News election desk analyst.

On Tuesday, September 10, Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump faced off in their first, and to date only, scheduled debate of the election season. Referred to by many as the “Super Bowl for nerds,” this event was sure to have many people tuning in. And Barnumbia showed up in full force with over 600 RSVPs for a 300-person auditorium, creating an electric atmosphere of anticipation, excitement, and political tension. 

The energy was palpable with students crowding around Roone Cinema’s doors an hour before the event started. The line to get in went down a full floor of Lerner, continuing to grow until the doors closed. As seats filled up quickly, the room buzzed with predictions about the upcoming debate. People exchanged heated opinions on policy and their very strong perspectives on the end of ‘Brat Summer.’ Many pored over the debate-themed Bingo cards, eager to see what moments they could circle and proposing their own additions for the night’s drama.

The hosts, Columbia Votes, Columbia Democrats, and Columbia Republicans, started by introducing themselves. CU Votes is a non-partisan voting rights organization, focused on making voting access easy and accessible to Columbia students. Columbia Democrats and Columbia Republicans are the campus’s largest funded political clubs and aim to create spaces for people interested in politics to come together to do things such as work on campaigns, debate issues, and find common ground. 

Most notably, Barnard Political Science professor Michael Miller provided analysis both at the start of the debate and during commercial breaks. Miller is a current data scientist and statistician working with the Fox News analytics team, and he has worked on many political campaigns, including Tim Walz’s first campaign in 2006, making him a seasoned expert in campaign strategy and voter behavior. As a result, his insight into the debate was invaluable. 

Miller started off his commentary with an acknowledgment that “There is not going to be a winner tonight.” Rather, the point for each candidate would be not to lose. He emphasized that in today’s Attention Economy, where decisions are often shaped by quick, meme-worthy moments, the real prize is gaining “earned media time”—free publicity through news coverage and social media. Candidates aim to stand out with memorable one-liners that audiences latch onto. In fact, according to Miller, even their facial expressions and sharp retorts were carefully rehearsed to become 15-second viral clips after the debate.

To succeed, Harris should effectively fact-check Trump, Miller said, and make her points clearly and coherently, rejecting Trump’s narrative of portraying her as a ‘San Francisco Liberal’ and seeming distinct from the candidate Biden was. Miller further explained that Harris’ primary objective would be to pitch herself to the 20% of undecided American voters by telling them about who she is and what her policies are. This information would be particularly important to those in areas like Western Pennsylvania, where her stance on fracking has been controversial. This undecided voter segment makes up a crucial battleground for one candidate to capture, particularly because polls were almost evenly split at the time of the debate.

Trump, whose identity and positions are already well-established, would aim to define Harris in a negative light for the undecided voters. Miller said that Trump would repeatedly call Harris crazy and emphasize how her America would be in complete chaos, especially in regards to the economy and immigration. And, those of you who watched the debate know, Miller’s analysis largely held true. 

When it was finally time for the debate to start, the audience loudly counted down from 10 as if watching the ball drop for New Years, breaking into cheers as soon as both candidates entered the stage and cheering so loudly when they shook hands that the voices of the commentators were lost. The debate itself was action-packed, with hard-hitting questions about the economy and abortion right off the bat and some interesting moments, such as the baseless mention of immigrants eating dogs by Donald Trump. The audience was just as reactive, with cheers, boos, laughter, and the occasional “ooooohs.” 

Like every Super Bowl, there were some touchdowns, some fumbles, and everyone in the room had their team—red, blue, or somewhere in between. But more than that, this event was a meaningful reminder of the power of political organizing, particularly in a non-partisan manner, and the importance of being knowledgeable of, and even involved in, political events. As Miller emphasized in the beginning, “Politics is not a hobby… Politics is still done today door-to-door. It is not done online, not on social media, but with shoe leather and sweat… We all have to serve in our own way, and I hope that you choose to do that.” And to make sure you serve, register to vote in the election this November.

Header via Eira Prakash