The days before the first and likely last presidential debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump felt like a blur of anticipation, concern and possible hope. Northeastern University was abuzz with organized watch parties, commentary and, of course, the expectation of many meme-able moments. The New York Times notably had the front page of its website decorated with speculation about the debate. The website seemed like an intricate tapestry of infographics, images and headlines subtly worded to support Harris.

It seemed like news outlets around the world were discussing the debate before it even happened. What was all of this speculation for? It essentially involved assumptions about a specific topic with no empirical evidence to support them. The use of speculation before the debate may have stemmed from curiosity about how Harris, a candidate who had never met the former president, would fare against Trump. People wanted to know how she would react, negatively or positively, against her opposition, who we all know plays unfairly. The public also wanted to know about her plans and policies and wondered how she would highlight them in the debate.  

Pre-debate, news outlets gauged the ongoing thoughts of the public, and their choice to speculate manufactured an undertone that Harris would convey her message clearly and effectively. This was indicated by a large range of articles worded in favor of Harris, or ridiculing Trump. News outlets highlighted Harris’ achievements, plans and policies and did a side-by-side comparison to those of Trump, illustrating a direct contrast between a serious candidate and a senseless one. This, in turn, implied a subtext that Trump would appear weak and unprepared beside the vice president. 

However, speculation is a double-edged sword and unfortunately impacts viewers, causing them to have preconceived notions about the candidates. In a perfect world, politics would be reported on objectively, with clarity, hard facts and implied minimal support for a specific candidate. This would allow viewers and potential voters to form their own opinions and choose a candidate based on their actions and initiatives instead of perfunctory statements made at rallies. 

Following the presidential debate, the media, notably mainstream outlets like The New York Times, relished in the rhetoric of Trump being weak and unfit for president. The Times delved into each of his statements, speeches and stories that makes him appear absurd and untrustworthy. A feature on the website Sept. 10 where viewers could see the two candidate’s stances on various key policies expected to be discussed during the debate.

Trump’s policies were written in an almost disdainful tone by The New York Times writers, indicating an undesirable outcome if carried out. It appeared he was under heavy scrutiny and judgment by the outlet, perhaps to make it seem like Harris is a more serious and compelling candidate. 

After the debate, viewers were pleasantly surprised with the way Harris performed, especially next to her notoriously argumentative opponent. The New York Times claimed “Harris Baits Trump,” meaning that he would strongly react to her statements instead of discussing his policies. Her ability to influence the trajectory of the debate by setting up traps for Trump so easily was impressive. During the debate, there was a stark difference in performance. We could see Trump was argumentative, in denial and falling into Harris’ traps. In comparison, Harris was calm and collected, placing structured jabs at Trump to illustrate said weaknesses. 

Notably, support for Trump post-debate did not falter significantly. His polling stayed the same, with a 1% to 2% difference at most after Sept. 11. Still, the consensus with his opposition online is that he did not perform well during the debate. Afterward, he attacked ABC News and its debate moderators, as well as Harris. Republicans also began to blame the network to justify Trump’s poor debate performance. We see this pattern of behavior with Trump often: He acts poorly and then blames the media for it, and his supporters believe him every time. 

Moreover, the rest of the world was shocked by his statements. These included mentions of Haitians eating dogs in Springfield, Ohio,  strongly attacking Harris during the debate and falsely saying that in some states, babies are killed after they are born. These are only a few of the outrageous statements the former president made. 

Fortunately, one highly-compelling aspect of the debate was the live fact-checking. Those watching the debate were witnesses to Trump’s false claims instead of discussing and speculating on his claims post-debate. It was an effective strategy to ensure fairness and credibility and highlighted Trump’s tired strategy for the United States’ future.

In a country that has a very public relationship between politics and voters, elections can sometimes seem like a glorified extravaganza of events. The political parties are so different in their approaches to policies and worldviews, with both arguing that the values of their own party are the correct ones. 

To people not from the United States, like me, we imagine it to be a constant war within a country that preaches being “united.” Individuals seem to tag along with one party, which becomes their entire persona, instead of truly looking at their parties’ policies and actions, or lack thereof. People who belong to one party unthinkingly hate the opposition without wanting to take a step back and see what their own candidate has to offer. 

What is it about their stances and solutions that actually make you hopeful for the future? In what way have they personally helped your daily life? Is there hard proof of the positive difference they made when they were in power? These considerations were especially important with the Oct. 1 vice-presidential debate as well. 

All prospective voters should reflect on the vice presidential debate with a close eye, monitoring the policies J.D. Vance and Tim Walz are planning to act on once in office. Following the conclusion of the presidential and vice presidential debates, people should avoid immediately agreeing with their own party’s candidate and genuinely listen to the opposition’s plans, especially with the election around the corner. Voters must have their own opinions and unique perspectives and develop them instead of buying into the craze and infatuation of 21st-century political herd mentality.

Tanvi Saxena is a first-year journalism major. She can be reached at [email protected].