A debate watch party that ends in hugs

WASHINGTON — In front of another crowd — one of the hundreds of Democrat-hosted watch parties across the country, perhaps, or the College Republicans gathering down the street, or in the debate studio itself — the suggestion would have received jeers. But to this crowd, no.

The only rules at this debate watch party, as explained at the start, were "honesty, dignity and respect." A dozen conservatives showed up; a dozen liberals, too. So when one participant, shortly after the debate concluded and the CBS feed cut, piped up and said he "wouldn't mind seeing a ticket with both of them on it," the only pushback he received was a logistical query: who would be at the top of the ticket, Sen. JD Vance or Gov. Tim Walz?

At this "Red-Blue Vice-Presidential Debate Watch Party," held in an office building a block from the White House, dialogue like this was expected, even encouraged. Braver Angels, a nonprofit dedicated to political depolarization, played host. The party brought together a group of voters from across the political spectrum to sit down together, watch the debate, and discuss their opinions.

Done well, the event would foster "curiosity," said Jessie Mannisto, Braver Angels' director of debates. "The candidates are trying to win an election," she said. That wouldn't be this group's goal. "We welcome opportunities to engage those with whom we disagree," she said, before the debate began. "I assume that you're here because you feel the same."

Many of the attendees, it appeared, did feel the same.

From the moment they walked in the door, they underwent something of a social experiment: they were immediately labeled as either conservative or liberal, picking up either a red or a blue card, whichever more closely matched their ideology.

As the debate went into its scheduled advertising breaks, the feed was muted, and attendees could raise their card — clearly signaling their ideological persuasion — and share whatever impressions they had. Other attendees were encouraged to respond, to agree or to disagree, and to show curiosity in the process.

Reds and blues were called on with equal frequency. "You're allowed to express your feelings," Mannisto said. "If you feel fear, if you feel anger, those feelings are welcome in this room."

The first comment, as the debate entered its initial TV break, came from someone holding a red card. "I kind of felt like Vance is probably winning thus far," Corey Walker said. Vance looks poised, he said, and Walz looked flustered at times — like when he was pressed on his visits to China. "I don't think it's the type of thing where, like, it's going to change the race," he added.

A blue card, sitting near the front of the room, agreed. "I think that it is very refreshing to hear a debate (that is) actually substantive," Randy Lioz said. His comment was met with applause. "I mean, personally, I'm a blue and I largely agree with Tim Walz's responses and his policies in general, but he is absolutely nervous."

Michael Carleton raised his blue card. "I'm surprised to hear these responses, because I was very frustrated by Vance's recitation of stump speech material and not answering the question," he said.

Thus the conversation continued, with partisans taking surprising positions: a blue-carded individual crediting Vance for offering "the first displays of, like, what I would describe as coherent MAGA Republicanism," and a red-carded individual shooting back and saying he thinks the rise of Trump has more to do with personality than "actual substance."

"I kind of like the fact that they are willing to acknowledge that there's, like, a lot of agreement on both sides, which has been really refreshing, even when they disagree," the individual holding the red card added. "For so long, we've just been hearing, like, if the other side wins, America will either be a fascist hellhole or it will be communist. So it's nice not to hear that for once."

As the debate moved into its second portion, the group became more animated. When Vance said he didn't "want to blame immigrants for higher housing prices," then immediately blamed "millions" of undocumented immigrants for driving up housing costs, the group emitted a collective groan. Even Walker, holding a red card, laughed when Vance bragged about endorsements from "lifelong blue-collar Democrats" like Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

But the loudest disagreement between Vance and Walz also brought the strongest agreement between attendees: whether the 2020 election was fair, and whether candidates should agree to accept the results of this year's race. The room went silent when Walz began pressing Vance on the 2020 election and the riots on Jan. 6, 2021.

"When this (election) is over, we need to shake hands, and the winner needs to be a winner," Walz said. "This has got to stop. It's tearing our country apart." Vance responded by saying Hillary Clinton cast doubt on her 2016 loss to Trump, which elicited laughs from the crowd. "Geez," one man whispered.

A red-card man raised his hand at the next break. "Trump just lost, and I think people who don't acknowledge that are just not being honest," he said. "And I say this as someone who's more conservative. I think that Vance himself also knows this, but he knows he has to say what he has to say in order to be in Trump's good graces." It is not good, he added, that "the future president United States is maybe someone that doesn't want to acknowledge the legitimacy of election results."

Lioz, a blue card holder, agreed. "Vance has refused to say that he would do what Mike Pence did," he said. "And that is extremely troubling. And I think that a lot of folks in in this room, including reds, are are very troubled by that."

Read the full article at Deseret.com.

Related topics