Here’s what six Minnesotans had to say about the Harris-Trump debate

Vice President Kamala Harris performed well in her first debate against former President Donald Trump but didn’t provide enough policy details. And Trump should have focused more on his accomplishments and policies instead of being sidetracked by Harris’ taunts.

Those were the general takeaways from interviews with six Minnesotans who watched the debate Tuesday night and shared their thoughts with the Star Tribune on Wednesday. The three Democrats and three Republicans had previously participated in Star Tribune voter panels about the 2024 presidential election.

Here’s what they said:

Even though Adams, an early-childhood educator and longtime Democratic activist, was already a committed Harris supporter, he said the vice president exceeded his expectations and came across as assertive and presidential.

“I’m glad she didn’t get caught up in the rhetoric that the previous president brought up,” Adams said, “and made it a point to get her agenda across instead of responding to the hyperbole and lies.”

Trump seemed incoherent, Adams said, and kept pivoting to the issue of immigration. He was taken aback by Trump’s insistence that Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio are eating people’s pets, and he thought it was right for the moderators to fact-check that and other claims. Maybe it seemed like Trump was held to a different standard by the moderators than Harris, Adams said, but Trump also got more chances to rebut Harris’ points.

Trump’s discussion of the 2020 riots in Minneapolis and liberal policies in Minnesota under Gov. Tim Walz felt like “grasping at straws,” Adams said.

“Anything they consider too liberal, they want to paint as extreme,” Adams said. “You’re throwing stuff out there to see what will stick.”

Kamara, who was a delegate to the Republican National Convention in July, said Harris seemed well-prepared for her first presidential election debate. Both Harris and Trump made the points they wanted to get across, he said, but Trump provided more substance.

Harris likely provided fewer policy details because she’s still trying to introduce herself to the country, Kamara said.

“When it comes to substance, she wasn’t really focused on that. She’s trying to create a narrative of who she is, what she represents, that I think is completely disingenuous. But it’s a strategy that, if it works, will be very beneficial to her,” he said.

Kamara said he thought the debate moderators were “absurdly biased.” Ultimately, though, he said he doesn’t think the debate will matter.

Debates were more meaningful back when Americans had less exposure to the candidates, Kamara said, but now there’s a 24-hour news cycle and social media platforms that provide seemingly endless updates on the race.

“I think they’re less important,” Kamara said of debates. “What they’re good at doing is generating … dollars for the candidates, and I also think they’re good at generating some energy or momentum with the activists.”

Keator, a retiree and election judge, said she thought both Trump and Harris performed well in the debate: “I think she did well,” Keator said of Harris. “That does not mean I think she’s competent. But I don’t think she hurt herself.”

The Republican still plans to vote for Trump, calling him “the lesser of two evils.” She said she thought the debate moderators were biased and fact-checked Trump more than Harris.

Keator said she dislikes Walz and thinks Harris shouldn’t have picked him to be her running mate, adding that Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro would have been a better choice. Still, Keator said she believes Harris is a tougher opponent for Trump than Biden was.

She expressed frustration with Trump’s comments on immigrants eating pets. The debate moderators interjected to note that local officials have found no evidence to support that claim.

“That thing with eating the pets, I don’t know what that’s all about,” Keator said. “That’s really weird.”

Even so, Keator said, “I don’t know that anybody’s mind was changed” by the debate.

Trump was “better behaved than I thought he’d be,” said Keith, a progressive Minneapolis resident who works in IT.

Though he had wanted to see Harris discuss her policy ideas more, Keith thought the vice president delivered a strong performance, especially compared to Trump.

“I thought her closing speech was fantastic,” Keith said. “Trump’s closing speech didn’t feel like a closing statement. It felt like he was just rambling for two minutes.”

But Harris wasn’t perfect, he said. Keith thought Harris could have been more critical of the withdrawal from Afghanistan.

“There were some spaces she could have drawn a clearer line between her and Biden, and that was one of them,” Keith said.

Keith also did not like that Harris said she would continue to provide weapons to Israel, because he fears those weapons will be used against civilians in Gaza, not only against Iran or Hamas fighters. But he thought Harris spoke more forcefully than Biden has about a two-state solution and the depths of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

For Keith, the debate cemented that it was the right choice for Democrats for Biden to step down and Harris to run for president, but he’s not sure it will have an impact on the election.

“I just really hope that enough people watched this debate and saw how ridiculous Trump was.”

Harris was impressive to Psihos, who works for a commercial solar company, both in the way she presented her economic policies, such as an expanded child tax credit, and in the ways she seemed to get under Trump’s skin.

“He was getting more unhinged as the debate went on,” Psihos said.

She especially liked Harris’ comment that dictators like Trump because he is easily manipulated with flattery and favors. And she loved the line about 81 million voters firing Trump in the 2020 election. “That was a masterful line, taking his words and turning it around,” she said.

She thought Trump said some especially odd things, like suggesting undocumented immigrants were getting gender transition surgeries in prison. “Somebody on Twitter called it the turducken of dog whistles,” she said. “He kept trying to hit those dog-whistle themes, and Harris brought it back to, ‘These are my policies, these are my plans.’ ”

Psihos was also struck by Trump’s statement that he has not discussed abortion with his vice presidential pick, JD Vance, but she was not surprised Trump did not answer direct questions about his own views on abortion.

The debate made Psihos more excited about down-ballot races, she said.

“How much more can we do? How much better if we get Congress, too?”

The debate didn’t turn Schiff, a longtime election judge, away from voting for Trump. She said Harris talked a big game, mentioning all that she would do if elected, but “she’s had three and a half years to do all those things and hasn’t done any of them.”

Schiff criticized Harris for flip-flopping on some policy positions, noting Harris once said she wanted to ban fracking but now says she wouldn’t. Harris’ plan to provide $25,000 in down payment assistance to first-time homebuyers also bothers Schiff.

“Where is that money coming from? Is it coming out of my pocket?” Schiff said. “No one helped my husband and me. We worked hard, and we made our own down payment.”

Schiff said Trump should have focused more on what he accomplished during his first term and what he wants to do for Americans going forward, instead of responding to all of Harris’ taunts.

“Trump needs to be more specific in his speeches, not be concerned about crowd size. [Harris] threw that in to get him going on that,” Schiff said. “I think [the race] will be very close because she talks a good game, but there is no substance to it.”