The University hosted the 2008 vice-presidential debate, between then-candidates Sarah Palin and Joseph Biden.

Before that, the University hosted presidential debates in 1992, 2000 and 2004. It was also chosen to host a debate between President Bill Clinton and Senator Bob Dole in 1996, but the debate was later canceled.

Eleven other universities, including Indiana University and Wake Forest University, have also applied to host debates in 2012.

According to Rob Wild, assistant to the chancellor, the University hopes to bring the debate to campus in order to increase student political involvement.

“We push to get students registered [to vote], and certainly when there is a debate on campus we have an easier time getting people on campus engaged,” Wild said.

He also said that the debates help enhance students’ academic experiences by increasing their knowledge of the political issues affecting the country as a whole.

Still, not all members of the University community agree that the 2008 debate contributed to their educational experience.

“As a student in polisci, I don’t think it added to my learning. Although I would have had a different experience if I had gotten in [to watch the debate],” said senior Peter Bush, who didn’t have a ticket.

The presidential and vice presidential debates are organized by the Commission on Presidential Debates. The Commission requires that each university hosting a debate be able to contribute to the cost of the debate. According to Wild, the University was required to give $1.65 million toward the 2008 debate.

The University received funding from outside sponsors to offset the cost of the debate. The administration hopes to do the same if it is chosen to host a debate in 2012.

“We do our best to make sure we minimize that impact,” Wild said.

According to Steve Givens, associate vice chancellor for pubic affairs, the University usually looks to St. Louis-based corporations to provide sponsorship. Emerson, AT&T and Wachovia sponsored the 2008 debate.

Givens, who was the head of the debate steering committees in 2000 and 2004, noted the historical importance of hosting presidential debates.

“No one knew five years ago when we agreed to host the vice presidential debate what an important event that was going to be toward the election,” Wild said.

The University has a long-standing tradition of giving all the debate tickets that it receives to students.

In 2008, the University released debate tickets to students via a lottery system. The University chose 432 of the 7,942 students who entered the lottery to attend the debate.

Students of the campus community hope that the University has more tickets to give to students if a debate is held on campus in 2012.

“I was here for the 2008 debate. I didn’t get to go because of the lottery system. It would be nice if more students could go,” junior Emilie Weisser said.

Many members of the Washington University community think that the debates increase the University’s name recognition.

“I think the VP debates are cool because they bring recognition to the school. Most people on the coasts don’t know about Wash. U.,” sophomore Allie Brand said.

According to Wild, the Commission on Presidential Debates chooses host sites based on a number of factors, including facilities and funding. In the past, leaders of the Commission on Presidential Debates have visited the campus prior to making the decision to evaluate the facilities.

The 2008 debate was held in the Athletic Complex. The AC also housed members of the media during the debate.

Administrators say that debates have consistently created enthusiasm among members of the University community.

“It has proven to be something that brings a lot of excitement to the University,” Wild said.

Givens attributes this enthusiasm among students to the degree of political involvement it affords them.

“It brings a level of excitement for our students, that the students find themselves in the middle of an historic, maybe even game-changing event,” Givens said.

With additional reporting by Wei-Yin Ko.

On Feb. 1, the Democratic National Committee opted to hold the convention in Charlotte, N.C., leaving out the remaining finalists St. Louis, Cleveland and Minneapolis.

The Democratic Party will nominate President Barack Obama for a second term at the convention, which is scheduled for the first week of September, 2012.

Hosting the Democratic National Convention comes with numerous perks for any city, including tourism, publicity and a large amount of revenue.

According to the DNC, the 2008 convention created $266 million in regional economic benefits for Denver, Colo.

The Democratic National Convention is held every presidential election year to confirm the presidential and vice presidential candidates.

In the past five election years, the convention has been held in Denver, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York City.

St. Louis was the runner-up to host the upcoming convention.

While Obama won North Carolina in the 2008 presidential election, he lost Missouri to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) by only 3,903 votes.

St. Louis has not been without its share of national political events. Washington University is the only institution of higher education to host more than two debates for the Committee on Presidential Debates (CPD). The University hosted the only three-candidate presidential debate in CPD history in 1992 and also held the 2004 presidential debate and the 2008 vice presidential debate.

Senior Kat Berger, former president of the Wash. U. College Democrats, noted the impact that the Democratic National Convention could have had on St. Louis.

“It would have been a really great way to energize the state,” Berger said. “The vice presidential debate on campus a few years ago made everyone really excited. It would be interesting to see if it changed which way the state would vote.”

St. Louis’ still has a chance to host a national event during the 2012 election season. The University has already planned its application to host the CPD 2012 presidential debate.

The debate was the most highly watched of any political debates since the 1992 presidential debate between Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush and Ross Perot.

A total of 69.9 million Americans tuned in to view the vice presidential debate, according to a Nielsen press release. In comparison, only 52.4 million viewers watched the first presidential debate on Sept. 26.

According to Wrighton, the University’s national recognition has increased because of the debate and its record turnout in viewers.

“You know you can’t buy this type of coverage,” Wrighton said. “I think it contributes to the overall positive reputation of Washington University. There were very notable members of the media here.”

Wrighton said that University students contributed by far the largest number of viewers watching the debate live in the debate hall.

An unexpectedly large number of students also saw the debate in person. The 2000 and 2004 presidential debates that were held at the University used a town-hall format, which offered limited seating on the floor. As a result of not using the town-hall format this time, in conjunction with the fact that both presidential campaigns released extra tickets, allowed more than 400 students to be admitted into the debate hall.

In the past, roughly 150 tickets have typically been issued to students.

Wrighton praised Rob Wild, assistant to the chancellor and chair of the Vice Presidential Debate Steering Committee, for his role in getting more tickets for students.

“Rob Wild was very effective, because the Commission on Presidential Debates didn’t want to give so-called obstructed view seats, but Rob said we could put more students in the debate hall,” Wrighton said.

According to Wrighton, many have wondered whether the enthusiasm exhibited by students on the day of the debate will translate to increased turnout at the voting booth.

“I think the estimates for voter turnout are pretty high; the opportunity to really make a difference is there. I think a positive outcome from having the debate is [that] it heightens people’s awareness as well as interest,” Wrighton said.

In addition to the crowds watching the event, 3,100 media credentials were requested for debate day, and all were granted.

“The level of media participation was extremely high,” Wrighton said. “Of course, [Alaska] Gov. [Sarah] Palin being drawn into being the vice presidential candidate for the Republican Party—a person not well known, not ever having been involved in national politics—created a huge amount of interest.”

The University stopped granting new credentials on Aug. 15, but Wrighton said that it was probably a mistake.

“In retrospect, that was not really right,” he said. “The conventions had not even been held [by Aug. 15].”

To counterbalance the early deadline, the University along with the Commission on Presidential Debates accepted additional requests for media credentials after the deadline.

According to Wrighton, the debate cost approximately $3 million in total. The University shared the weight of the financial burden with its sponsors, Emerson, Wachovia Securities and AT&T.

The exact cost of the debate, however, has not yet been calculated.

“I don’t know and we won’t know for some time. Just to begin with, we put $1.35 million in the hands of the Commission on Presidential Debates to support their expenses. And then, we have our own expenses,” Wrighton said.

Many items from the debate have appeared on eBay to be put up for sale in the past week, Wrighton said, including parking passes, press kits, lanyards and buttons.

Plans to apply for hosting a debate in 2012 are not yet underway.

“Right now, we have made no plans, but we will consider that opportunity when it comes up as I hope it will,” Wrighton said. “2012 is just around the corner.”

The tickets, which were allotted to Washington University by the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), were first distributed through the University’s lottery system. When the number of tickets available exceeded the number of lottery numbers drawn, tickets were distributed to student leaders.

“The real reason we had more seats in there was that we had a lot more partial and obstructed view seats on the sides,” Rob Wild, assistant to the Chancellor and chair of the Vice Presidential Debate Steering Committee, said. “Because this is not like a theater where we know how many seats there are, literally, until 48 hours up to the debate they were still setting the number of seats on the floor.”

There was no shortage of interest in attending the debate: 7,148 students applied for tickets before the lottery closed on Friday, Sept. 26. Initially the University expected to receive tickets for only 100 to 150 seats, but as the week progressed, it quickly became clear that more seating would be available.

“I’m just so thrilled,” Wild said. “We thought we were going to get 150 students in and we got nearly three times that many.”

Because the University was given so many tickets, more tickets could be distributed to students in the lottery.

389 students came to the drawing, leaving 43 tickets to spare. With such a substantial number of tickets remaining—and no way of contacting the students with lower lottery numbers—University administrators decided to give tickets to student leaders who were not a part of the lottery.

According to Assistant Vice Chancellor for Students Jill Carnaghi, there were three options: the University could have let the seats go empty, given the tickets to administrators or given them to students they know.

“[Letting the seats go empty] would have been a crime, and giving the tickets to administration and faculty would go against everything we stand for, and what we have done in each debate we got,” Carnaghi said.

In the end, the decision to keep all the CPD tickets in the hands of students allowed 43 students who were not in the lottery to receive tickets. Students targeted for the second distribution of tickets included campus leaders, volunteers and students known to the administration.

The total 432 tickets distributed to students do not include an unknown number of students who received tickets from the media outlets for whom they were working.

Freshman Parsa Bastani was one of the lucky few who received a ticket but was not in the top 300 lottery.

“I was pulsating entering, because I wasn’t originally supposed to have a ticket,” he said. “It was such an electric atmosphere.”

As an undecided voter, junior Jimmy Cox was focused on the issues.

“I’m very excited,” he said. “I’m just looking forward to hear[ing] both of them. I’m on the fence right now, so I want to hear what they have to say.”

Overall, the debate’s focus seemed to be on Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, as many students went into the debate with their eyes on her.

“I pretty much have a very Tina Fey-opinion of Sarah Palin right now, so it’ll be interesting whether the extra training she’s done for this has gotten her up to date,” junior Emily Lebsack said. “As for Biden, I have a lot of respect for him and for his experience.”

With additional reporting by Sam Guzik and Dan Woznica.

The first choice of the Commission for Presidential Debates (CPD) was Washington State University’s campus in Spokane (WSU), a school making its first bid to host a presidential debate. Though it received an offer to host the vice presidential debate, WSU declined because administrators worried about finding enough corporate sponsors for the event.

“It seemed like it was a stretch for a presidential debate. It seemed like with a vice presidential debate it would be harder,” said James Tinney, WSU’s director of media relations.

At the time, it did not appear as though the vice presidential debate would get as much attention as it has, especially since previous vice presidential debates traditionally drew viewers.

“We had to make a decision based on the information we had at the time,” Tinney said. “Now at that point everybody thought [the presidential candidates] would be Clinton and Giuliani.”

WSU’s application for hosting the debates began with a new faculty member who had previously worked at Michigan State University, and had enjoyed hosting the event before. Like Washington University, WSU went through the CPD’s application process for months.

“[We] had good cooperation with the community,” Tinney said. “It was a useful exercise for us, but [in the end] it didn’t work out.”

Although the debate wouldn’t have been right on campus, there was still some political interest amongst the students who were already tuned into politics, according to Tinney.

This debate would have been especially important to WSU students, because Palin went to the University of Idaho, located less than 10 miles away from the WSU campus.

“I think there’s a local tie in there,” Tinney said.

Currently, the political makeup of the student body seemed unaffected by this connection.
The campus is located in eastern Washington, a very conservative part of the state. Because college campuses often incline toward the left side of the political spectrum, however, Tinney felt that the students’ political views were split fairly evenly.

After all, college students vote in notoriously low numbers. We also blindly worship young celebrity candidates rather than carefully examining the issues, and we spend all of our time watching “Grey’s Anatomy” in our unwashed pajamas and eating cereal.

This stereotype, however, is false. Not only do we sometimes watch “Lost” instead of “Grey’s,” but we also have been watching the election coverage. We have even been talking about the issues and registering to vote.

Furthermore, the Commission on Presidential Debates chose Wash. U. despite our alleged apathy. I am fairly certain it was not for our picturesque collegiate Gothic architecture, but rather as a reminder that this election is about the future. More than anything, this debate is about we college students and about the kind of world we will soon inherit.

Right now, that world is looking pretty bleak. The economy is rapidly collapsing; the environment is deteriorating; the inequality gap is widening and America’s standing in the world is substantially weaker than it was eight years ago.

For the first time in American history, a generation of young adults may face a lower standard of living than the generation before them.

Tonight our vice presidential candidates need to explain how they and their running mates will reverse these trends.

We need a candidate who offers a plan for successfully withdrawing from Iraq. We cannot afford to spend the next 100 years maintaining Iraqi stability, especially at a time when America so desperately needs to be investing more money at home.

We need increased regulation and oversight for the companies receiving government handouts as part of our attempt to save our collapsing financial system. For the past eight years, our government regulators have operated with a deep contempt for regulation. The result has been disastrous.

We need an energy policy that forces us to kick our addiction to oil completely. Gimmicks like gas tax holidays and offshore drilling offer a little short-term relief, but do nothing to encourage the investment in alternative energy that we need to carry us into the future.

We need to restore our focus on the war in Afghanistan, the real home of Al-Qaeda, and prevent the conflict from spillover into Pakistan where instability could place nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists. We need a candidate who will address the growing threat of a nuclear Iran.

Finally, we need a candidate who will reform our health care system, improve the quality of our public education and repair our infrastructure. Making these critical investments is the only way to preserve America’s economic competitiveness for the 21st century and protect my generation’s economic prospects.

These are issues that deserve real, substantive debate. Cheap sound bites and trivial distractions are not enough to capture the magnitude of the problems we now face.

Temporary solutions like offshore drilling are not enough. Running on wedge issues like abortion or gun control is not enough. Empty attack ads are not enough.

My generation deserves more than an overstretched military, a rising debt to China and a devastated planet. Instead, help us inherit a future free from nuclear proliferation and dependence on foreign oil. Help us find better job opportunities when we graduate and help us now as we struggle to pay rising college tuition costs.

This election is too important to be skewed by sensationalistic journalists or candidates who attempt to compensate for weak platforms with shameless personal attacks.

Maybe that’s why Wash. U. students have been registering to vote in record numbers this fall: It seems that we have woken up from our television-induced comas long enough to notice that our future is at risk.

So please don’t reduce this election to a mere personality contest. Give us a real debate, one that moves this country forward into the future and promises us the opportunities for progress afforded to each American generation before us. We deserve no less.

Though the debates have been held regularly since, their style has changed.

Because the vice presidential debate risks rehashing the issues covered in the presidential debates, the vice presidential debates often focus on rhetoric, opinion and verbal attack—especially when the vice presidential candidate’s remarks are not directly linked to the presidential candidate’s image.

“Vice presidents have been both the attack and support dog at the top of the ticket,” Assistant Professor of Political Science Andrew Rehfeld said.

Perhaps one of the greatest moments in debate history occurred in the vice presidential debate of 1988. During the debate, Democratic vice presidential candidate Lloyd Bentsen called into question the experience of the younger Republican vice presidential candidate, Dan Quayle.

Bentsen also severely criticized Quayle’s lack of experience after the Republican candidate compared himself to former President John F. Kennedy.

“Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy,” Bensten replied.

However, incidents such as these tend to be the exceptions to the rule, as the emphasis in the election remains on the presidential candidates.

This year, however, the vice presidential debate will be watched much more closely. According to Steve Givens, associate vice chancellor and vice chair of the Vice Presidential Debate Steering Committee, the number of viewers of the vice presidential debate is usually about the same as that of the second and third presidential debates.

Others, however, believe the media attention around Biden and Palin will drive up viewership. Rehfeld predicted that this vice presidential debate will have as large an audience as the presidential debates.

Although they are on the same ticket, McCain and Palin disagree over several of the more controversial issues, such as abortion. Palin opposes abortion even in cases of rape and incest, while McCain would permit such exceptions.

Conversely, some see Biden as a natural choice for the Obama campaign.

“Biden seems to be a complement to [the presidential candidate],” Rehfeld said. “There are no obvious downsides.”

Palin, by contrast, was for some a highly controversial pick who has “generated a huge amount of excitement and disdain,” according to Rehfeld.

“This year the Republicans have a two-for in Sarah Palin in that the vice presidency for them is much more salient because of McCain’s age. [The debate highlights] the general difference between presidential and vice presidential candidates,” he said.

Such a difference was also apparent in the 1980 debates, when George Bush had to explain why he was supporting Reagan after criticizing his “voodoo economics” in the primary season.

“Most of the time, there’s not so much of a pragmatic disjuncture between the two,” Rehfeld said.

“There could be more interest this time because of who the players are,” Givens said.

Givens, who chaired the 2000 and 2004 presidential debate committees, felt that the planning has in fact been much the same as for a presidential debate.

“From our standpoint, as the hosts of this thing, there is absolutely no difference,” Givens said.

For every election cycle since 1992, the University has been slated to host the presidential candidates in a debate, and—aside from a last-moment cancellation in 1996—has successfully done so.

The University’s positive record for the events governed the decision by the Commission on Presidential Debates to give it its fifth bid at a debate, this time between vice presidential candidates Joe Biden and Sarah Palin.

“We’ve proven ourselves over and over that we can do this, that this is a great place to host a debate, and that our students are helpful want to be right in the middle of everything,” Associate Vice Chancellor Steve Givens, who chaired the steering committee for the debates in 2000 and 2004, said.

The University showed its ability after its first hosting in 1992, when President George H.W. Bush squared off against then-Governor of Arkansas Bill Clinton. After the Commission’s first choice site was unable to hold the debate, it gave the University the opportunity with one week’s notice. Planners had to compress nearly a year’s planning into seven days.

“It was obviously a crazy time, but we proved to ourselves that we could do this and we knew that if given more time, we could do a better job,” Givens said. “We very quickly divided up what needed to be done, and it was a matter of divide and conquer.”

Burnished by its timely performance four years earlier, the University was once again selected to host the debate in 1996. Because the Commission decided to reduce the three debates to two, however, the event was cancelled.

Nonetheless, the Commission contacted the University again in 2000 and 2004. Givens, calling the University the “gold standard” of debate sites, attributed its success to a combination of factors, including a location conducive to such events.

“One of the things that makes this a great site is the [Athletic Complex]. You not only have the debate itself but six to seven hundred media members filling up the rec. gym,” he said.

Looking forward to this year’s debate, Givens said the University’s preparations have not changed due to this one’s featuring the vice presidential candidates. Because of expanding Internet media, moreover, he predicts that this debate will feature more journalists than previous years.

“Every usable space in the AC will be taken over entirely,” Givens said.

Alumnus Philip Sholts, who graduated in 2008 and currently works in St. Louis, remembers the 2004 debate as a time of elevated student excitement and minimal security hassles.

“There were a few checkpoints around campus where security guards or police officers would check your ID to verify you were a Wash. U. student,” Sholts said. “But it was never really a big issue.”

Sholts noted that all streets surrounding the University were shut down on the day of the debate. Others do not recall significant security concerns in the past.

“To be honest, the security didn’t really interfere with me at all as a student,” Rachel Fitz, another alumnus who viewed the 2004 debate first-hand as a freshman, said. “On the day of the debate, parking on campus was impossible, but that was to be expected.”

The Commission on Presidential Debates used Washington University students who bore some resemblance to the vice presidential candidates and moderator Gwen Ifill in a rehearsal walk-through to ensure that the sound and lighting were functioning properly for today’s live event.

The University held two separate walkthroughs.

During the first, at 10 a.m., junior Danielle Porter stood in for Gwen Ifill, junior Madeline Thoman for Gov. Sarah Palin and senior Joe Cavanagh for Sen. Joe Biden.

During the later walkthrough at 4 p.m., senior Lydia Beasley stood in for Ifill, senior Julia Latash for Palin and junior Danny Gaynor for Biden.

The student stand-ins made up non-political debate questions and both “candidates” weighed in on the topics for up to three or four minutes.

“It’s been a lot of fun to be up there, [to] be where the candidates are going to be, to practice the walk, the wave, the handshake the choreographed movements,” Latash said. “[We covered] hard-hitting issues that affect everyday Americans like us.”

Correction

The headline of an earlier version of this story incorrectly stated that students stood in for Barack Obama, not Sarah Palin. Student Life regrets the error.