“A blowout. Against a blowhard.”

That’s how one reader of The Day, Stonington resident Diana Lurie Boersma, characterized Tuesday’s debate between Vice President Kamala Harris, a Democrat, and former Republican President Donald Trump.

And Boersma wasn’t alone.

Nearly everyone who wrote in response to an online query said Harris won the 90-minute debate, even Rob Brewer of Waterford, a longtime Republican and Libertarian voter who said the vice president “clearly described policies” compared to Trump becoming “totally unhinged” when talking about immigration.

“To me, he had a ‘Biden moment’ (referring to the current president’s performance in the debate a couple of months ago). People stealing dogs and cats and eating them?” said Brewer in an email, referring to a false Trump claim about immigrants in Springfield, Ohio. “It showed that he is as unstable as ‘Old Joe Biden’ and unfit for any public office, let alone the presidency. Vice President Harris, on the other hand, came across as the adult in the room.”

Brewer said he went into the debate “as a truly undecided voter” though he is a registered Republican and has voted for the GOP or Libertarian Party in every election since 1980. He prefers smaller, less intrusive government but saw Harris as the clear winner in the debate.

“She deliberately baited Donald Trump and was in command of the debate throughout the evening,” Brewer said.

Polls taken after the debate tended to confirm Brewer’s observation, with a CNN survey finding 63% said the evening favored Harris compared with 37% saying Trump got the best of it. Other surveys had Harris’ debate advantage similarly high, while she was 2.7 points above Trump in the most recent average of national presidential polls.

Frances Bonardi of Pawcatuck said the debate showed two completely different candidates.

“Harris is articulate, she called Trump on so many of his lies, and outrageous remarks,” Bonardi said in an email. “She reminded voters that the choice is between a clear thinking person, and a lying convicted felon.”

“Kamala Harris clearly prepared for this debate,” said Mike Stryker, who spends time in New London during the summer but is based in Fort Myers, Fla. “Donald Trump looked like a kid pretending to have read a book for a book report. The pivotal moment for me was the real time fact checking on pet eating and post-birth abortions. The key policy moment on national security was when Harris said she has spoken to Trump’s military leaders who said he is a disgrace.”

“From the start Kamala Harris came out strong, poised, focused and seeking to unite us. Trump presented his true self as well by name calling, lying, dodging questions and hell bent on dividing us,” said Roger Hurley of Old Lyme in an email.

“Old lying alpha male vs. strong smart woman? No question who won if we’re scoring a high school debate,” Tina West of Lyme wrote in an email. “But I was hoping Kamala would do even more on an emotional level: connect with the undecided and occasional voters in a way that made them certain that they would make the effort to get out and vote for her. I’m not sure she did that because she seemed too focused on getting her prepared, somewhat abstract position statements out. More anecdotes, or a flash of humor would have helped.”

Mara Suttmann-Lea, a professor of American politics at Connecticut College, took a different tack on this debate compared to previous ones by listening to rather than watching the event. This allowed the content of the debate to shine through rather than an emphasis on body language and other tangential details.

From this point of view, Suttmann-Lea said Trump seemed to hold his own early in the debate and may have even got the best of Harris when talking about the economy, but he seemed to lose it after she questioned the excitement and numbers at his rallies.

“I noticed almost like a nosedive in his focus and ability to stay on message ... and not devolve into personal grievances, as he often does,” Suttmann-Lea said in a Zoom call.

Stonington resident Boersma agreed, saying Harris looked and sounded presidential compared to Trump’s more chaotic approach.

“She may not have given details of her plans ― but with only two minutes per answer, she gave enough,” Boersma said in an email. “Trump sounded confused and chaotic ― post birth abortion? Immigrants eating people’s pets? Nine years to plan an alternate health care reform bill and refusing to answer why he doesn’t have one yet, thinking saying he has a ‘concept’ would be enough? He may call it weaving, but he weaves to deceive.”

Suttmann-Lea acknowledged that policy prescriptions rarely carry the day during a debate, as opposed to difficult-to-define concepts such as looking presidential and presenting yourself as powerful. But Suttmann-Lea believed Harris managed to find her groove partly by baiting Trump to go down rabbit holes while managing to sidestep any big mistakes herself.

“Debates really come down to the ability to project personality and character on screen,” said reader West, who is a political scientist. “Harris did way better than her 2020 stump speech but not as well as her August acceptance speech.”

A key moment for Suttmann-Lea was when Trump continued to question the outcome of the 2020 election, despite his seeming acknowledgment in recent statements that he had lost by “a whisker.” It was one of the several times that fact checking was used to the benefit of Harris, according to Suttmann-Lea, who nevertheless said it was doubtful this would move the needle with Trump’s base.

Several readers were unhappy with the format or conduct of the debate, including West, who complained “the moderators allowed too much Trump rebuttal time and were too quick to move on to the next topic.”

Mary Beth Baker of New London added: “I don’t get how anyone can have a serious debate, a debate worthy of any audience, when the opponent just makes up stuff, whatever might best suit the argument or whatever might muddle the real issue. It makes the debate format meaningless.”

Helen Sandalls of New London said in an email, “I was MOST disappointed in the two ABC debate moderators. They did not follow the rules (or exercise their authority) ... that each nominee would have his/her mic turned off when it was not their turn to talk.”

Others were left wanting clearer answers or comments that spoke to the substance of the questions.

“I think they should have called the debate a debacle,” said Peter Matylewicz of Oakdale. “I am still waiting for Mr Trump to answer a yes or no question and for Mrs. Harris to explain how she intends to pay for all her giveaways. Especially since we are saddled with a Congress that has no interest in bettering America. I cannot fathom how I could waste my vote on either of these people.”

Lloyd McDonald of Groton was one of the few who called the debate a draw, but he saw the ABC interviewers as biased and looked forward to another meeting of the candidates on Fox News.

“Kamala did not fall to pieces as I expected,” McDonald said in an email. “She did her homework and spewed out memorized lines. She never got into any specifics about her plans or her flip flopping. Trump started well but got angry and didn't put forth his best arguments to counter her lies.”

As for body language, several commentators noted Harris taking the initiative to shake Trump’s hand at the beginning of the debate, as well as her quizzical grin as Trump recited his sometimes-fanciful talking points or defended himself against attacks by people who once worked for him.

“Kamala offered some embellishments of the truth but Trump far outweighed her in bald-faced lies and ridiculous fantasy stories,” said Patricia Brune of Groton in an email. “In a nutshell, Kamala brought her prosecutorial A-game and Trump brought his ego and delusional ramblings.”

“Trump was his usual bombastic self. Repeating lies, very disrespectful to the office of the President, and never once looked at Harris in the eye, or referred to her by her name,” Pawcatuck’s Bonardi said.

“I haven't watched presidential debates in the past,” said reader Scott Petrie, who didn’t give a hometown. “I'm glad I watched last night. Finally someone that can stand up to Trump. Go get him Kamala. You have my vote.”

“No lies, straight shooter, she won me over,” Tom Moretti of Westerly wrote in an email. “She is what this country needs! Let’s stop the hate, America is great already!”

Whether other voters will be so easy to sway is doubtful, said Suttmann-Lea, the Conn political scientist who noted there is “so little wiggle room” when it comes to persuading undecided voters because many people have hardened their views about each party over the past few years.

A lot of it depends on how the media spins the debate, the professor said, since the low-information voters who may still be persuadable are also the ones least likely to have seen Tuesday’s debate.

The effect of the debate, therefore, “might be minimal,” Suttmann-Lea said.

l.howard@theday.com