Doesn't sound like it, actually.
I gather from the article that the students disliked the personal attacks made by both candidates, and that -- more than than anything having to do with substance -- formed the basis of their assessment.
It's part of the symptoms of a culture where "being mean" is seen as a very grave sin.
They're right, in a way: candidates tend to spend a lot of time in these "debates" trying to score the best sound-bites, rather than addressing serious substance, and that's bad for the nation.
I believe that the students really were so upset by the mud-slinging that nothing else got through to them.
To "win" in such an environment, one or both of the candidates would have had to rise above it. O'Donnell didn't, and neither did Coons.
Result: no minds were changed among the students interviewed.