Dartmouth Hosts Conway, Brazille in Debate

On October 10, students from far and wide across Dartmouth’s campus filed into Filene auditorium, eager for the battle of the century. With less than a month to go before election day, tensions on campus and across the nation are high, and undergraduates were eager for a pressure release valve in the form of a climactic debate between two political experts—Donna Brazille and Kellyane Conway. 

The conversation between the two pundits revealed a stark contrast; while both women have extensive political experience, Conway’s answers showcased a sharper understanding of the challenges posed by the political establishment, media bias, and the necessity for competition in elections. Conversely, Brazille seemed more interested in storytelling about her own experiences surviving hurricanes and her deep-seated anger with the Democratic establishment than answering the questions at hand. 

One of the key moments was when Conway addressed the importance of competition within a political system. She said distinctly, “Competition sharpens you.” Drawing on her experience managing Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign, she highlighted how Trump defied conventional patterns and defeated 17 Republican challengers. She took the opportunity to toat, rightfully so, the fact that she was the first woman campaign manager to win a national presidential campaign. She credited the win to Trump’s ability to push past the notion of “electability,” a term she viewed as weaponized. By killing the concept of electability, she argued Trump opened the door for more authentic political competition—a healthy force that sharpens candidates and offers voters real choices. She complimented the Democrats who have found ways to brush past most of the questions of electability and elect candidates like a “peanut farmer” in Jimmy Carter, a “junior Senator” in Barack Obama, and the Governor of one of the poorest states in the country in Bill Clinton.  

My personal favorite moment from the debate was when Conway called out one of the DPUs moderators for the phrasing of a particular question—in which Conway was asked to comment on her ban from appearing on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” Conway fiercely retorted that she had, in fact, already refused to appear once again on the show following the show’s rejection of Conway’s resoundingly accurate predictions for the presidential race. Perhaps the pundits at MSNBC were unable to stomach looking in the eye the single individual that had proven every ostensible “expert” in the polling industry wrong.

Brazille, on the other hand, spent much of her time reminiscing about past campaigns and Democratic Party struggles. While she acknowledged some of the flaws in her own party, such as Hillary Clinton’s financial influence over the 2016 Democratic primary, her analysis felt less rooted in solutions and more in discussing her anger with the current party. Accurately, she represented the Democrats’ struggle to include too many views, but her quip about “ helping Dartmouth students with their homework” early on, set a tone that seemed more geared toward humor than tackling the critical issues at hand. The unholy mesh of good-natured banter and anecdotal storytelling failed to send a concrete point about political discourse to the impressionable audience.

Conway’s point about Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ‘s treatment and removal by the Democratic Party further echoed concerns Brazille expressed about the parties’ overzealous establishment control. She explained that the DNC made it clear that they had no intention of recognizing his candidacy, an example of how entrenched political establishments often stifle insurgent voices rather than engage in fair competition. Keeping dissenting voices out of the race may protect an establishment’s preferred candidates, but it undermines the democratic process. She called back to this in an audience question from The Review’s own Michael DiCostanzo when he asked about the failure to have a democratic process when they nominated Kamala Harris over Joe Biden following his announcement of exiting the race. Conway noted that the lack of competition has led to her continued struggle to perform in non-scripted moments without heavy editing. 

Conway also did not shy away from the hard truths about money in politics. She proclaimed that, in 2016, Trump’s campaign spent less than a third of what his opponents did, yet still emerged victorious. She highlighted the contrast between Trump’s campaign and others, noting that campaigns flush with cash often make poor strategic choices, thereby squandering resources. She wryly noted how the Harris campaign is overspending on ads, calling to Wall Street wisdom: “The quickest way to make a small fortune is to start with a large one.” She was, however, able to criticize the 2020 Biden campaign’s performance, adding that the campaign “pissed their money away.” Brazille and Conway were both careful to articulate that money can be a particularly distortive force within politics.      

On the issue of media bias, Conway was particularly scathing in a way that Brazille missed the mark on. Conway accused the national media of overwhelming favoritism toward Democratic candidates like Kamala Harris. She criticized the media’s role in shaping the public’s view, claiming they’ve failed in their responsibility to provide fair coverage and instead aim to influence opinions. She joked that “it is not their job to tell me who their favorite is.” Her example of BBC fact-checking Harris—something domestic outlets refused to do—further demonstrated her point. Conway’s request that we, the public, engage with those who challenge our preconceptions is more than just rhetoric; it’s a necessary step in rebuilding political discourse. 

While Brazille acknowledged that faith in our institutions has eroded, her emphasis on personal anecdotes and stories felt out of touch with the urgency of today’s political climate. The Dartmouth audience necessitates facts and accountability, not platitudes. Conway’s defense of competition in politics, criticism of media bias, and awareness of the pitfalls of big money resonated with the real issues that Dartmouth students care about.