As the crowd slowly filtered in into the Jack Morton Auditorium on Monday night, the tone was one of anticipation and support; an eagerness to find out more about the issues and support for friends running for the SA.
Though many students came in with little to no background information, and were at the debates to be informed about the issues and candidates, the majority of students already knew exactly what they wanted to happen in the upcoming year. Doug Arbiter, a GW student, argued that “it’s ridiculous you have to pay an initial psychiatric fee” and endorsed Jason Kaplan, whose platform concentrates on the issue. Many students supported this in addition to a range of issues from excessive stress on diversity to continuing effort in fixing Gelman.
However, much of the audience was not there about issues but rather in support of friends. Whole rows were filled with individuals seeking to endorse and cheer on a specific candidate. In addition to the large portion of the audience taken up reporters from the Hatchet and other news sources, it seemed like the general student body was poorly represented in the audience. Freshmen Ryan Huttman later said about the SA that “I have no idea what that thing is”. Many freshmen that were interviewed outside of the debate expressed similar views, having little to no recognition of what the SA is and what it does.
Regardless of the makeup of the audience, the debate began promptly, albeit a little frazzled. The opening remarks of the EVP Candidates were neglected, and it went directly into the questioning of the candidates (though this mistake was later rectified by extending the closing remarks).
During the first debate the crowd was mostly silent, with a few scattered applause during Ted Costigan’s explanation of his “No Fees” platform and a large response to Amanda Galonek’s suggestion of putting water “bubblers”(or purifiers) in all housing. The crowd especially responded to more lighthearted segments, such as giggling during Lauren French’s question about the candidate’s favorite basketball players and applause as Zahin Hasan took a photo of the audience during his closing remarks.
During the first break between the EVP and presidential debate, members of the crowd expressed a general feeling that all the candidates had presented themselves well. There were a few who seemed to stand out though. One student felt that Ted Costigan’s answers to hard questions about his “No Fees” platform really made him stand out and that “no one else could have answered it as well as he did”. Another student, Donavan Allan, felt that despite “everyone having very solid platforms,” he felt he would end up voting for Aria Varasteh.
In contrast to its EVP counterparts, the presidential candidates were not nearly as subdued. Nearly all participants went over the time limit substantially at least once, and far more laughs were drawn out of the crowd starting with Joshua Benjamin’s rather offhanded comment “don’t be weirded out if I put honey in my mouth”. His voice was rather hoarse, but that didn’t stop him from “going off script because I don’t have a script”. The audience roared with laughter and a set a tone of a rather more free willed second debate.
There were clear winners of the debate in terms of laughs, specifically Phil Gardner and Kwasi Agyeman. Phil continued to contradict question after question with his stance of abolishing the SA much to the enjoyment of the crowd (though the validity of the abolishing was later examined in the questioning of panelist and Hatchet News Editor Emily Cahn). Kwasi thrilled the crowed with the continual pushing fo his main campaign proposal, the “buff and blue block party” (an enhanced and extended version of the current chalk parties on H Street), answering many questions and responding to several other candidates with the same endorsement. One of the comedic highlights of the evening had to be President Knapp’s question for the candidates, that after being giggled at for its vagueness, was then met with laughter as host Lauren French had to clarify his question so people could understand it.
The response of the audience was not solely laughs; applause roared after several candidate statements. Jason Kaplan’s stressing of no fees for counseling and Caleb Raymond’s assertion that no “event with 50% or more GW students” should have to pay to use GW space. However, every candidate had some moment of strong approbation.
After the debate, the audience seemed unable to pick a clear winner. Dominique Bosman said “I’m not sure one candidate stood out above the rest”. Several students commented that they were especially impressed by Kwasi and that they would most likely vote for him. Many students were impressed by the professionalism of the debate, and that they were not expecting it to be so civil. As a whole the response was clear; everyone involved held their own, and the upcoming race was not conclusively decided in any direction at the debate.
No comments:
Post a Comment