We asked college newspaper editors for reactions to the first Clinton-Trump debate. Here's what they told us. http://college.usatoday.com/2016/09/27/we-asked-college-newspaper-editors-for-reactions-to-the-first-clinton-trump-debate-heres-what-they-told-us/
http://college.usatoday.com/2016/09/27/we-asked-college-newspaper-editors-for-reactions-to-the-first-clinton-trump-debate-heres-what-they-told-us/ We asked college newspaper editors for reactions to the ... http://college.usatoday.com/2016/09/27/we-asked-college-newspaper-editors-for-reactions-to-the-first-clinton-trump-debate-heres-what-they-told-us/ College newspaper editors share their observations and reactions to the first 2016 presidential debate. View on college.usatoday.com http://college.usatoday.com/2016/09/27/we-asked-college-newspaper-editors-for-reactions-to-the-first-clinton-trump-debate-heres-what-they-told-us/ Preview by Yahoo We asked college newspaper editors for reactions to the first Clinton-Trump debate. Here's what they told us. By USA TODAY College staff http://college.usatoday.com/author/usa-today-college-staff/ 12:19 am EDT September 27, 2016 1.5k shares SHARE TWEET EMAIL We asked college newspaper editors and staffers to weigh in — and, if they can, to share what they’re hearing from other students on campus — on the first 2016 presidential debate. Here’s what they had to share. Some responses have been lightly edited for clarity. Keeton Nance, editor-in-chief, Collegian http://willamettecollegian.com/main/, Willamette University: The presidential debate presented an opportunity for our politically charged campus to come together to share in an educational extracurricular opportunity. While Willamette is not the most conventionally spirited or unified campus, we do align in our political passion, which was demonstrated by the high student, faculty and community turnout at Debate Watch, an event held by a communications class to encourage discussion and intentional participation in politics. I was proud to see students listening intently and cheering for ideas they agree with, faculty facilitating discussion and 8-year-old girls taking notes on the candidates’ opposing arguments. At times throughout my Willamette career, I have felt unsatisfied with student engagement in a more traditional manner, such as attendance at on-campus events or athletic events. But I saw the unification of the student body tonight as laughter reverberated through the room as Hillary and Trump exchanged blows. The arguments presented in the debate gave me mixed feelings. I shared the sentiments of many of the Debate Watch participants as Trump suggested slashing taxes on corporations from 35 to 15 percent. Any attempt he made to include facts seemed weak and unfounded, and his bullish arguments lacked any intention other than to belittle Clinton. Having been a Bernie supporter prior to this summer, I felt encouraged and hopeful watching Clinton handle his barrage of slander with dignity and professionalism. She drove home her points with appropriate supporting facts and her policies were intentionally directed toward voters. I not only feel comfortable with the Democrat’s nomination, but very supportive. After watching this debate, I believe I am one of many students and voters who proudly stand with her. Mary Tomlinson, editor-in-chief, Detours Magazine http://tmn.truman.edu/detours/, and editorial staff, Truman Media Network http://tmn.truman.edu/, Truman State University In the days coming up to the first presidential debate, I was excited for the chance for the candidates to discuss the actual details and nuances of the issues. Despite the fact that the election has dominated the news cycle for the last year, the national conversation has centered on scandal after scandal instead of qualifications and plans for the presidency. During the three main sections of the debate tonight — jobs, race relations and national security — Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump started off answering the question posed by moderator Lester Holt. But as the back-and-forth continued in each section, the conversation devolved into “zingers” referring back to the scandals that have already been beat to death in the national conversation. I understand these types of statements are swift ways to swing the crowd, but ultimately hold little substance. Looking at the mannerisms of Clinton and Trump, body language and talking patterns spoke volumes. Both myself and fellow students took notice of Trump’s lack of hesitation in interrupting Clinton mid-speech, even after repeated requests from Holt to cede Clinton her appropriated time. While he raised his voice saying the same phrase repeatedly, she stood patient and collected. This is in the same evening that Trump argued how he had a stronger temperament than Clinton. On a final, unrelated note, my post-debate Snapchat Story Feed is full of Clinton and Trump’s faces with the deer, puppy dog, face swap and frowny face filters. I hope this is a sign that college students are paying attention to the election, beyond trying out new filters on our potential President’s face. Cody Boteler, editor in chief, Towerlight http://thetowerlight.com/, Towson University Hillary Clinton won the first 2016 presidential debate. At least, that was the overwhelming opinion at the watch party I was at. Even the few students there who leaned conservative or politically apathetic agreed: Secretary Clinton won. There were cheers when she dropped good lines (“I think preparing to be president is a good”) and outcries when Donald Trump lied or rambled for minutes on end. “From my point of view, I wanted to see Trump get theatrical,” Matt Teitelbaum, vice president of the College Democrats of Maryland, said. “I wanted to see Clinton get a zinger, and I guess the closest thing we got to a zinger was her enjoyment of his rants.” Omnia Shedid, a senior political science student at Towson University, was quick to decide that Clinton won the first debate. “I love how poised she was and how calm she was to everything Trump said,” Shedid said. “She proved what Michelle Obama said about going high when they go low.” Nobody at the watch party seemed to mind that college loans or student debt weren’t discussed. I was the only one who was bothered by the minimal discussion on climate change. For now, it seems at least, the college crowd is content to watch how things play out. “If you win the debates, you win the election,” Teitelbaum said. “And so far Clinton is one for one.” Jessica Karins, news editor, Webster Journal http://websterjournal.com/, Webster University A debate watch event at Webster University. (Photo: Jessica Karins) At Webster University’s debate watching party, most of the responses to presidential candidates Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton came in the form of laughter. Many college students tend to see political debate as a form of absurdist entertainment, and there’s no one more absurd than Donald Trump. That students I talked to weren’t watching the debate to get information. They’d already made up their minds, and were voting either for Hillary Clinton or for a third party candidate. They were there to laugh at Donald Trump. Trump, who spent most of the debate defending his level of wealth, repeating talking points ripped from Twitter hashtags and blatantly misspeaking about ISIS, gave them plenty of material. Hillary Clinton had a stronger night — on most topics, she was well-prepared, articulate and clearly out-performed Trump. She offered viewers a clear alternative, one who exuded presidential self-confidence and poise. Awkward moments did happen; Clinton should have known better than to let a question about race relations get bogged down in the pedantics of policing rather than making a clear case for how she’ll help fight racism. Webster’s debate voters responded more to Clinton’s humorous jabs than her own policy proposals, and that seems to have been her precise goal. The debate didn’t dwell on the issues that tend to matter most to college students. Apart from an inadequate discussion of race, civil rights did not come up, and neither did student loan issues. Even general economic discussion got lost in the shuffle. While moderator Lester Holt seemed thoroughly lost, Clinton kept steering the topic of his questions back to Trump’s many failings, and he always took the bait. Clinton didn’t offer the clear case for her own campaign that some voters, especially left-leaning young people, are still looking for. But she clearly came to the debate with just one point to make: that she is exponentially more qualified to be president that Donald Trump. No honest observer could disagree. Aaron Fongers, writer, The Sojourn http://www.iwusojourn.com/, Indiana Wesleyan University: I was surprised that on a national stage, in front of over 10 million people, that two people vying for the most important job in America could not be civilized to not only each other, but also to the man who was chosen to moderate this very indicative debate. I was surprised that instead of a conversation on the state of America, and how each candidate plans to improve it, Clinton and Trump instead began a verbal sparring match in order to win the American public’s favor by seeking to ‘knock out’ the other with a more vicious jab at past or previous comments and policies. When I watched this debate, I had hoped for chance to be able to see into the hearts of the candidates; to see what plans they had to restore the United States of America for the good of its citizens. Indeed, this debate delivered a view into the hearts of the candidates, but I did not see who wanted to become the responsible leader of this country. I saw two candidates who liked to argue about what was said about each other, rather than deliberate to the American public their plans on how they will improve our nation. What I, and my fellow students want to know, is who will be the best suited candidate to address crippling student debt, to protect the jobs we are working so hard to earn degrees for, and who will ensure that our futures will not be hindered by tax reforms or cuts to the Social Security we will collect some day. Therefore, I hope that my fellow citizens will join me in carefully considering our options for who we want to lead our country come November. The choice could change our lives forever. Sarah Simon, views editor, Hullabaloo http://www.tulanehullabaloo.com/, Tulane University: Considering the unprecedented lack of professionalism between Clinton and Trump in the past, most students gathering in Tulane’s Lavin-Bernick Center for Student Life seemed to have pretty low expectations for the debate. Early on, it was pretty clear that Clinton had more support in the crowd. We all cheered as Clinton declared her aims of lowering the cost of higher education, and at her clever zingers on “trump’ed up trickle-down.” Many students expressed concerns with the lack of proper attention on race-based issues. It seemed inappropriate that the question about racial justice was only addressed in terms of law and order. As a population, we seem to care more about social justice in our own country than about foreign policy and economics, so it was disappointing to watch the candidates use the platform to argue about the constitutionality of the already-eliminated stop and frisk policy and who started the movement to see President Obama’s birth certificate. After the debate, some students stayed around to discuss the debate, led by political science professor Mirya Holman. Students expressed concern about the way candidates discussed war — it seemed almost like a competition for who is most willing to invoke interventionist foreign policy over cyber-warfare and ISIS. Students also disliked the gendered rhetoric used by and directed at Clinton. She repeatedly cited that fact-checkers needed to call out Trump, but that is her job as well. Having spent months under Trump’s critical eye being called “shrill” and “condescending,” it makes sense that she’s reluctant to call him out, but it is still her job. Likewise, Trump seems to attack Clinton’s “nice woman” image, calling out her mean negative campaigning with her anti-Trump ads. Overall, we found the debate more politics-oriented than anticipated, but we hope for more involved and self-reflective talk of racial issues in the future. Garrett Ross, editor-in-chief, Daily Collegian http://www.collegian.psu.edu/, Penn State We had a handful of viewing parties, some public and some private, among groups across campus. The election has become a hot button topic on campus with students, and this was evident by the watch parties and social media. Many of the students that we talked to were able to fairly critique both candidates, but we also heard from some students that felt neither Clinton nor Trump represented issues that matter to college students — they said they felt as though third party candidates should be allowed to participate in the debates going forward because of this lack of representation. What surprised me about the debate was how wide reaching it was. One thing that stood out to me was that Clinton seemed to push more for those issues that related to college students, both current and perspective, while Trump did not dive too deep into those topics. Brad Bennion, news editor, The Daily Utah Chronicle http://dailyutahchronicle.com/, University of Utah The debate tonight had a clear winner. Hillary swiftly and somewhat easily took down her opponent over the course of the debate. As I was watching Trump, it was like watching a slow motion train wreck. I really wanted to look away, but i couldn’t take my eyes off it. It was very clear tonight that Trump is not right for America. Watching the debate tonight really emphasized the need for me and my fellow students to get out and vote. I refuse to allow Donald Trump to become president, so I’m going to do everything in my power to stop him. Ezekiel Lee, news editor, The Signpost http://signpost.mywebermedia.com/, Weber State University Tonight’s debate showed the country and me exactly what we expected: chaos. Trump and Clinton bickered like children and proved to be embarrassing at times. Calling each other by first names proved unprofessional and aggravated personal attacks. I could hear Trump misspell words as they left his mouth. Clinton’s canned responses with references to her childhood were mainly stale. Overall, it was a pleasure to laugh at, but the bitter reality remained — one of them will become Commander-in-Chief. Kaitlin Brothers, reporter, The Muleskinner https://digitalburg.com/, University of Central Missouri I watched the presidential debate at a viewing party hosted by American Democracy Project in the student union. Before the debate started, I was expecting to be surprised by things Donald Trump would say to Hillary Clinton, and I was hoping she would come back at him with facts and logic. I think in the debate that happened a couple of times, but it was still quite shocking. It was interesting to me that during the debate, other students at the viewing party were laughing a lot. It felt like I was watching a comedy sometimes. It’s kind of surprising to me because I don’t think presidential debates should be humorous. I think it should be more professional when talking about politics, so that people can take the candidates’ issues more seriously. I was also hoping that they would talk more about Hillary’s plan for free college, but it was only mentioned a couple of times. That is an issue students want to hear about. Also, it was good that the race and gender question came up, because with that, we could see the candidate’s true values on equal rights. I hope that in future debates, more questions like that are asked so that we can really get to know the candidates morals and personality. But I think overall it was a good debate with a lot of great questions for the candidates, and I’m excited to see more of them soon. 2016 United States Presidential Election http://college.usatoday.com/tag/2016-united-states-presidential-election/, Campus Newspaper http://college.usatoday.com/tag/campus-newspaper/, college newspapers http://college.usatoday.com/tag/college-newspapers/, Donald Trump http://college.usatoday.com/tag/donald-trump/, Hillary Clinton http://college.usatoday.com/tag/hillary-clinton/, presidential debate http://college.usatoday.com/tag/presidential-debate/, student journalists http://college.usatoday.com/tag/student-journalists/, student newspapers http://college.usatoday.com/tag/student-newspapers/, ELECTION 2016 http://college.usatoday.com/category/election-2016-2/, News | USA TODAY College http://college.usatoday.com/category/news-2/ http://college.usatoday.com/category/news-2/ News | USA TODAY College http://college.usatoday.com/category/news-2/ 0 reply 2hr News No, Clemson didn't really ban Harambe memes News· 6:24 pm EDT September 27, 2016 · Michael Schramm Clemson didn’t kil... View on college.usatoday.com http://college.usatoday.com/category/news-2/ Preview by Yahoo
