With the vice presidential debate that occurred on Oct. 1, Mitch Perdrix, a history teacher at WHHS, shared his thoughts and opinions on the overall event.
Q: What were your initial impressions of the debate overall?
Perdrix: “I was fascinated by the efforts both candidates made to try and present a more civil atmosphere. There were definitely moments where they showed genuine concern or respect, but it felt forced sometimes… I kind [of] thought that it was amusing.”
Q: Which candidate do you believe performed better and why?
Perdrix: “In terms of being a polished speaker, and even handling moments that might’ve been uncomfortable or feeling like a certain question wasn’t something they wanted to engage in because it might not be an answer [they wanted] to give, I thought Vance was much more effective. You could really see the educational background he has through that. In terms of coming off as genuine and more folksy, I think Walz had an advantage there. That’s why, when it comes down to questions like ‘who won?’ I think it depends on what you’re looking for. If you’re looking for that folksy and genuine feel, that also at times can be awkward and maybe not present as well, Walz was your guy. If you were looking for more of a professional handling of the debate and maybe not being quite as genuine, then you probably like Vance’s work better.”
Q: Did you notice any differences in the candidates’ communication styles?
Perdrix: “I think it was pretty clear that Walz was a little more anxious; you could see all that in his exaggerated body movements. But there’s a flip side to every coin… we watched Vance be so smooth, and I just think the downside of that is just being too robotic or ingenuine.”
Q: How important do you think body language was in conveying their messages?
Perdrix: “I think [body language] is huge. For a lot of people in this country, how you present [yourself] is more important than what you’re saying, and I think we’ve seen a lot of examples of that, where someone looks good, sounds good, presents confidently and has a real assertiveness that at the end of the day it doesn’t matter how true or false, how good or bad what their saying is, [because] they presented better.”
Q: Were there any topics you felt were neglected during the debate?
Perdrix: “I really do think the question of election integrity [and] facts aren’t getting enough attention. Politics has always had some stretching of the truth, but we’re just stuck on things that have zero basis in fact that are being said or promoted, and we’ve seen some of the damage that’s been caused around the country.”