Lights, camera, action – the US presidential debates have arrived.

For pure entertainment – for political geeks at least – it is unrivalled.

The pageantry and pomp alone put our brief – and deeply misguided – flirtation with televised debates to shame.

But for all the ceremony and circumstance, they are rarely game changers.

Few would point to a televised head-to-head as the key point where a campaign was won or lost.

As a format watched by tens of millions of voters, they do offer the chance for less well-known candidates to tackle their more famed opponents.

Mitt Romney did this in the first debate of the 2012 campaign, trouncing Obama and boosting his poll ratings – albeit briefly.

Bill Clinton did it too against the better-known incumbent, George H.W. Bush.

Yet tonight we had two unusually well known candidates – one a former First Lady and Secretary ofState, the other a reality TV star and real estate tycoon.

In such circumstances, there was far more to be lost than to be won.

Before the bright lights beamed and the cameras whirled, you might have been forgiven if you thought it would be Donald Trump who would put a foot wrong.

In contrast to Clinton, who has formidable debating experience, Trump is less tested.

His performances in the primaries – and his debate preparation, of eating cheeseburgers and thinking-up witty one liners with Rudy Giuliani – hardly inspired confidence.

Whether it was Al Gore’s repeated sighing or George Bush checking his watch, 90 minute head-to-head clashes can snare even the most seasoned of competitors.

For Trump – who likes to shoot from the hip more than John Wayne – it was a minefield.

Yet he largely held his own.

The discussion – often more so than out and out debate – was civil, if screechy.

If people were hoping Trump might get riled or vexed, they were disappointed.

Of course, the moderator’s frequent vanishing act allowed The Donald to regularly run riot.

In contrast, it was Clinton who often found herself on the defensive, forced to rebut claims about her health and judgement.

This was, of course, to be expected. The Republicans have made much of her ‘secret’ pneumonia diagnosis,as well as her use of a private email server during her time in the StateDepartment.

Both, predictably, were topics Trump was more than happy to raise.

In this contest, as this debate showed, Clinton’s depth of experience is as much a hindrance as it is a help.

And there in lay the crux.Clinton is strong on policy – and stronger, certainly, than Trump.

But when he refused to engage on the important matters of, well, government, there was little she could do.

It is difficult to coherently rebut often rambling and unspecific answers.

The Donald is a broad-brush man – a trait unsuited to the presidency, many would argue, but one that serves him well in TV debates like this one.

As a reflection of how anti-detail he is, his already meaningless ‘Make America Great Again’ slogan has now been whittled down to simply #MAGA, which sounds more like the motto of a stag-do on its way to Prestwick, than a political campaign.

Clinton, of course, got her shots in. She challenged Trump’s more outlandish remarks and policy proposals,such as they are.

Her careful, but powerful,attack on his refusal to release his tax returns was the stand out moment of the debate.

Yet Trump’s great strength is his simplicity. He has as much interest in the practical workings of his pledges as voters do – almost none.

Picking holes in his positions–as Clinton did – is all well and good, but might not actually win votes.

If The Donald continues to dodge self-immolation by off-the-cuff remark – as he largely did tonight – the Clinton campaign could be in for a close fight.

 

So how did they rate?

Blonde and blue-tied, TheDonald was better than many expected.
He did not implode, but nordid he explode.

Donald Trump: 6/10

More subdued than in hisprevious performances, Trump was often inarticulate and vague on policy – butthat, in truth, is a large part of his appeal.

He is not a policy wonk orcareer politician, and he played effectively to that reputation.

Phrases like “to besemi-exact” are ludicrous, but also rather charming. “Braggadocios” is anotherexample.

Fact checkers, inevitably,will have had a busy night.

The Republican made a numberof dubious – and outright wrong – claims. That President Clinton signed theNAFTA trade deal – it was actually George H.W. Bush – was a particularhighlight.

At one point he even seemedto demand praise for not banning black people from his Florida country club.

In truth though, this isnothing new – and his supporters won’t care.
Did he do enough to convinceundecided voters though? Probably not.

Hillary Clinton 7/10

Dressed in a blood red suit,Hilary was keen to the play the part of the stateswoman.

Her experience showed. Shewas well prepared and rarely appeared fazed by any questions: the formerSecretary of State knew her brief and she knew it well.

Yet she is not the sharpest arguer.A number of comments could have been jumped on, but Clinton let them slide.

The Democrat nominee seemedsomewhat scripted and reluctant to seize the initiative.

And she failed to be trulycompassionate – or to relate her arguments to voters.

Her points were piled full offacts and figures, but she lacked empathy.
Like Trump, she will havebolstered her own support.

But in an increasinglyfractious campaign, it is unlikely her performance will have drawn back intothe fold those currently backing third party candidates, let alone Trumpsupporters.